"Most of us 'old-time' libertarians have known about this sad period of Ron Paul's career from the get-go"

Matt Welch | January 9, 2008

Timothy Virkkala has some interesting insidery information about the authorship of old Ron Paul newsletters:

As a writer and editor working in the libertarian movement at the time of these "Ron Paul" newsletters, I have vague recollection of "common knowledge": it was known who wrote these newsletters, and why. It was money for Ron. It was money for the writers. And it was a way of keeping Ron's name in the minds of right wingers with money ... future donors.

It was designed to be entertaining writing. Provocative. It flirted with racism, like Mencken's did, and Mencken was indeed the model. But these writings went further than Mencken usually did (for publication) along the lines of annoying the racially sensitive; and they sometimes did veer into outright racism.

I was embarrassed by the implied racial hatred, for the general level of hate regardlesss of race ... and in part because the writing was so obviously not Ron's, and so obviously the product of the actual writers, with whom I had tangential relations — is my editor's* writer my writer? [...]

Most of us "old-time" libertarians have known about this sad period of Ron Paul's career from the get-go. We know that it was a lapse on his part. But we who opposed it (and not all of us did) put much of the blame on the writers involved, not on Paul, who was, after all, juggling family, medicine, politics, and continued study of actual economics. That Paul didn't realize what he was doing to his own moral stance is amazing. His style is one of earnest moralizing. That fits his character. The ugliness of this career move speaks a sad story.

It also says the harshest thing about Ron Paul as presidential timber: he let himself be so easily used and influenced. [...]

Like Rodney King, one might prefer we all just get along, move along, and forget about this sorry story. But it is worth exploring. Racism is still a live issue in America. And, apparently, in libertarianism.

Make sure to read Dave Weigel's first-out-of-the-gate Ron Paul response to the newsletter exhumations, as well as reason reaction from Nick Gillespie, Jesse Walker, me, Radley Balko, and Brian Doherty.

Update: Wendy McElroy pens an open appeal to the primary ghost-writer:

The identity of the author of the 'objectionable' material from past issues of Ron Paul's Newsletter -- material that is currently being used by major media to skewer Paul [see blog post below] -- is an open secret within the circles in which I run. The news accounts refer to him merely as an "aide." We call him by his first name.

I am addressing an appeal to this man. Damage is being done to the libertarian movement (see Radley Balko's analysis) and to Ron Paul. Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck about the latter...but I know you do. Will you now do the decent thing for libertarianism and come forward to acknowledge responsibility for the material being used against your mentor? [...]

I appeal to the author to do the decent thing. Don't let Ron Paul take the fall for your words and actions. Don't further sully the libertarian movement by your silence. I know that -- in writing this -- I am severing all connection between us in the future and, frankly, I am sorry to do so. Nevertheless...so be it. Through our years of association, one thing I have never considered you to be is a coward.Please prove my assessment correct; please take responsibility.

Comments

|1.9.08 @ 9:39AM|#

I thought Eric Dondero was giving youse guys the inside scoop on this story. I must be confused.

DavidS|1.9.08 @ 9:43AM|#

I just don't get it. The guy allows bile like this to go under his name, insiders at the time knew what was going on, and it's merely a 'lapse':

"I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or not threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.)"

|1.9.08 @ 9:43AM|#

But it is worth exploring. Racism is still a live issue in America. And, apparently, in libertarianism.

Geez, what's worth exploring? What's the "it" here? The fact that there are some old-timey paleos with libertarian sympathies who flirt with racism? We GOT it already.

We already know that "The Fever Swamp"* is full of racists and people who dance on that edge.

Maybe I'm missing why "Move Along...nothing to see here" really isn't the proper response in this case.

*Credit to Tom Palmer for calling LewRockwell.com "The Fever Swamp".

|1.9.08 @ 9:43AM|#

"We know that it was a lapse on his part. But we who opposed it (and not all of us did) put much of the blame on the writers involved, not on Paul, who was, after all, juggling family, medicine, politics, and continued study of actual economics. "

Is it just me, or did these newsletters run for over a freaking decade? That isn't a "lapse."

These things basically leave us with three choices:

1. Ron Paul is a closet bigot/conspiracy nutjob

2. Ron Paul is affected by a particular strain of moral bankruptcy and has no problem keeping close company and playing nice with bigots/conspiracy nutjobs as long as they keep the money, votes and activism coming

3. Ron Paul didn't actually know the vile stuff being published in his name for over a decade despite approving the newsletters and cashing the checks, proving him a complete fucking moron unfit to run a dairy queen, let alone a country


Generously, I lean towards option 2

|1.9.08 @ 9:43AM|#

Is the author implying Paul knew about this and decided to do nothing? *tsk tsk*

It also says the harshest thing about Ron Paul as presidential timber: he let himself be so easily used and influenced.

used...maybe...influenced...that's a bit of a stretch, considering how resolute you've seen Paul and unwavering in his message.

|1.9.08 @ 9:44AM|#

Racism is still a live issue in America. And, apparently, in libertarianism.

On this forum, the statement is sadly and undeniably accurate.

|1.9.08 @ 9:45AM|#

2. Ron Paul is affected by a particular strain of moral bankruptcy and has no problem keeping close company and playing nice with bigots/conspiracy nutjobs as long as they keep the money, votes and activism coming

sounds like every other politician out there, except this one is willing to let you live your life without interference.

Episiarch|1.9.08 @ 9:45AM|#

Maybe others have said this in the other threads on the topic that I was too busy to join.

For me, what I am really feeling right now (and not that much, as I don't invest much in politicians, even someone like Paul--and now we see why) is disappointment. He let us all down.

When things started to really heat up (which I doubt he expected), he needed to get serious and realize somebody was going to kick him in the nuts with this. Shit, I can look back at my own history and easily see the things that could hurt me if I were to even run for office (it'll never happen). I'd be thinking about them constantly and how to react and spin them.

So either Paul is hopelessly naive (not the worst thing in the world) or he just wasn't serious. Which sucks, because the people getting excited about him were.

And also, anybody who has been outspoken in their support for Paul and his message to their friends/colleagues/acquaintances is now going to get reamed by smug, pouncing leftists and rightwingers. Thanks, Ron!

|1.9.08 @ 9:47AM|#

I just don't get it. The guy allows bile like this to go under his name, insiders at the time knew what was going on, and it's merely a 'lapse'

Did you RTFA?

The only people who don't believe Dr. Paul are those who won't believe Dr. Paul because they have an axe to grind.

The man said [paraphrase] 'It isn't my stuff, I don't like that stuff and I never thought that stuff...I recognize that it was in my name and I take responsibility for that'

I swear some people want Paul to commit seppuku over this.

|1.9.08 @ 9:48AM|#

And also, anybody who has been outspoken in their support for Paul and his message to their friends/colleagues/acquaintances is now going to get reamed by smug, pouncing leftists and rightwingers. Thanks, Ron!

and yet, when those smug right wingers and leftists find themselves with a bad candidate, they rally and bring themselves together. Whenever libertarians find themselves with a candidate who has human flaws, they fold like a deck of cards. Awesome...real awesome.

DavidS|1.9.08 @ 9:49AM|#

I really like the implication that he-was-only-doing-it-for-the-money line is supposed to make this not seem so bad...

|1.9.08 @ 9:49AM|#

AR,

Herding cats my friend...herding cats.

Episiarch|1.9.08 @ 9:51AM|#

Whenever libertarians find themselves with a candidate who has human flaws, they fold like a deck of cards.

I didn't say I'd stop supporting Paul--even if he screwed up he's still the best candidate. I certainly don't believe he's a racist. I said that by not running interference on this from the get-go, Ron screwed his supporters, and that sucks. It's disappointing.

|1.9.08 @ 9:51AM|#

David,

The author wasn't defending Paul, just trying to be subtle in the takedown, kind of like when a right winger is for some reason on the winning side of the issue and assumes a sort of patronizing "there there little libertarian, you'll grow up one day, just keep hope"

|1.9.08 @ 9:51AM|#

And also, anybody who has been outspoken in their support for Paul and his message to their friends/colleagues/acquaintances is now going to get reamed by smug, pouncing leftists and rightwingers.

Could you cry any more?

Did you think that the man's beliefs were just going to spread, unchecked by political foibles and games?

Part of me is thankful: this kind of shows the smug apathetic libertarian-types that politics is ugly, and we can either sit on the sidelines and fukkin' gripe or we have to get in the trenches and get dirty sometimes.

|1.9.08 @ 9:55AM|#

Ron Paul is affected by a particular strain of moral bankruptcy and has no problem keeping close company and playing nice with bigots/conspiracy nutjobs as long as they keep the money, votes and activism coming

Or, perhaps, Dr Paul's lack of the nanny gene prevented him from being the sort of sanctimonious, moralizing scold who would go swooning off to the fainting couch at the merest whisper of an improper opinion.

Is this really moral bankruptcy?

|1.9.08 @ 9:56AM|#

Herding cats my friend...herding cats.

Yeah, jeez, LIT, I'm with you.

Abandontarians, much as this may irk you, you're acting just like Objectivist groups.

Just. Like. Them.

|1.9.08 @ 9:56AM|#

yes, its sad to find someone you supported so enthusiastically isn't perfect, but maybe that's a problem with your enthusiasm rather than his faults. I'm not going to back down against the leftists or right wingers because of this, but so many people are expressing such disdain and hopelessness, they appear to be trying to break themselves away from their premature enthusiasm.

And of course none of us are talking about McCain's cozyness with certain gray area PACs or blatant lobbyist pandering by Thompson, or Giuliani's support for police abuses (turning blind eyes to things going on which they should have been fired for).

Nope, its all about Paul's faults. He's fucking human and a politician, but there's nothing that shows he's compromised his beliefs in any real way because of this.

DavidS|1.9.08 @ 9:58AM|#

ayn_randian - the quote I gave ("the federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.)" etc) was from a letter that is signed "sincerely, Ron Paul"...

Somehow, I guess, that just seems a bigger deal to you than it does to me. But would you let any other candidate get away with a vague apology for letting his signature be used in that way?

Episiarch|1.9.08 @ 9:58AM|#

Could you cry any more?

I can try. I can only watch Beaches so many times, though.

Part of me is thankful: this kind of shows the smug apathetic libertarian-types that politics is ugly, and we can either sit on the sidelines and fukkin' gripe or we have to get in the trenches and get dirty sometimes.

Good for you, un-apathetic libertarian-type. I'm glad you like the scrum. But not all of us are your type, who likes being a non-entity who can endlessly gripe and complain because you get more pleasure out of that than you would from actually...winning.

|1.9.08 @ 9:59AM|#

Timothy says:

"Oh, so who wrote Ron Paul's newsletter? I have only hearsay and memory to go on. But really, most of us in the libertarian "industry" just "knew" who. I have four names in mind, I think all contributed at one point or another. But maybe it was only a subset of those names, maybe it was just one or two. One of the names is pretty damn obvious. And one of the names is not obvious at all; the style was abandoned for better things, later on."

Hmmmm.

highnumber|1.9.08 @ 10:01AM|#

If you want to emulate Mencken, the first step is to write very, very, well. Quality was his hallmark.

|1.9.08 @ 10:03AM|#

"Human flaws"?

The man lent his name to some pretty virulent shit for a very long time. I don't care if he didn't write it, his name is on it. Figuring out that you should pay attention to stuff your name is on is a simple concept that anyone with two brain cells to rub together figured out the first time they did group work in elementary school. These newsletters went out for a very, very long time. So when the sainted Doctor says he didn't know what was being said, I call pure, unadulterated bullshit. Everyone else in libertarian circles apparently knew about this stuff. His ideological/intellectual contemporaries certainly did.

And there's the rub. If he knew this stuff was going out with his name on it, he's off the table for me. I don't care if he vigorously repudiates the stupid shit (which he hasn't bothered to as of yet). Either he agreed at the time and got his head right sometime in the mid nineties ("ancient history"), or he never did and he's a unprincipled little twerp.

Claiming that other politicians are bad isn't an argument. Claiming that he didn't write that stuff isn't an argument--the point isn't that he did. Claiming that TNR is biased or bringing up Stephen Glass has nothing to do with whether the quotes are real, which nobody in the campaign has claimed. I'm waiting for a real argument why this isn't a big freaking deal

Russ 2000|1.9.08 @ 10:03AM|#

Looks like Ron Paul will have to make some reparations to his campaign.

Russ 2000|1.9.08 @ 10:04AM|#

Look, he's a Congressman. You actually expect him to read stuff his name is on? Then hold the sponsors of the Patriot Act to the same standard.

tepid|1.9.08 @ 10:05AM|#

Abandontarians, much as this may irk you, you're acting just like Objectivist groups.

Just. Like. Them.

I was going to point to this as a mark against you, A_R.

Maybe I don't know you well enough though, are you a different breed of objectivist (or perhaps not one at all)?

|1.9.08 @ 10:06AM|#

Part of me is thankful: this kind of shows the smug apathetic libertarian-types that politics is ugly, and we can either sit on the sidelines and fukkin' gripe or we have to get in the trenches and get dirty sometimes.

Or we can support libertarian candidates instead of paleocon federalist republicans who cash checks for years because of words they didn't bother to read or refute until they decided to go back to congress.

libertarianism doesn't begin or end with Ron Paul. If libertarians are more apt to "clean house" than the other parties or idealogies i don't see that as a vice.

kinnath|1.9.08 @ 10:06AM|#

Let us not forget that it has been shown repeatedly that our elected representatives frequently don't read the LEGISLATION that they "author" let alone any of the legislation that they vote on.

|1.9.08 @ 10:09AM|#

I share Episiarch's dissapointment. It was unkind to Paul's supporters for him to not get this out of the way earlier. However, firstly, how was he supposed to know that he was going to be the front-man for a movement as large as has taken place? It really sucks, it does.
But I share AR's point about getting dirty. Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good will forever keep libertarians out of the national conversation, and we need to start supporting imperfect people. It would just help if we knew what kinds of attacks to field. This blindsided a lot of Ron's supporters, and I doubt they appreciate it much.

|1.9.08 @ 10:09AM|#

My biggest concern is that this whole mess supports the common misconception that Ron Paul supporters are all a bunch of whack-jobs. Regardless of what Paul did or didn't write and who he did or didn't associate with, most Ron Paul supporters are "normal" Americans, and this scandal doesn't change the fact that the policies Paul advocates (immigration aside) will do more to lift up minorities than any government program would. The end game isn't a Paul presidency, it's a sustainable political movement (within or outside of the GOP) that recognizes smaller government and greater civil liberties. I can only hope the indiscretions of one man don't turn young people away from the message of liberty.

|1.9.08 @ 10:10AM|#

And while i did beat my wife for a good 4 years, i am not nor have i ever been a serial killer, do i get brownie points too? (sarcasm, i only beat my wife when she deserves it)

|1.9.08 @ 10:10AM|#

The Reason staff (I'm ignoring the trolls here) has truly disappointed me on this.

I've read the newsletter excerpts and, taken in CONTEXT (remember that concept, folks?) I can't find ONE racist or anti-gay quote. What I did read were a few crass attempts at humor, some politically-incorrect comments. Big whup. Do you mean to tell me, for example, that "limp-wristed" - in the context of humor/sarcasm - references to gays is cause for ALARM?

If Ron Paul had actually written this stuff, I'd be shrugging it off as often poor attempts at edgy writing, no worse or offensive than a lot of crap seen in MSM columns.

The fact that Paul has stated, over and over again, that he did NOT write this stuff, and that he does NOT share its sentiments, makes it an utter non-story, yet here we have the Reason staff fanning flames of hysteria, participating in an attempted smear of the biggest libertarian happening (Paul's campaign) in the past 40 years.

The irony is that, in pissing on the Revolution, Reason is shooting itself in the foot.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves. I'm cancelling my subscription, for sure, and will no longer be steering like-minded souls to your magazine, or this site.

|1.9.08 @ 10:11AM|#

I'm waiting for a real argument why this isn't a big freaking deal

Likewise, I'm wondering why it is. The issues should be on the table, not the man.

who likes being a non-entity who can endlessly gripe and complain because you get more pleasure out of that than you would from actually...winning.

I'm not sure how you win without playing the game in the first place. Sure, I'd like a more favorable field but I'm not waiting around for the (literal) revolution.

|1.9.08 @ 10:11AM|#

3. Ron Paul didn't actually know the vile stuff being published in his name for over a decade despite approving the newsletters and cashing the checks, proving him a complete fucking moron unfit to run a dairy queen, let alone a country

All the racist stuff cited by Kirchick was published from 1990-94. Look at his article and check the dates.

Sean|1.9.08 @ 10:11AM|#

This is complete bullshit.

This entire thing is 100% proof that we are fucked as a nation.

A newsletter with Ron Paul's name on it... who gives a flying fuck?!?

Ron Paul DID NOT sign the Patriot Act, nor did he authorize a pointless war which has killed almost 4,000 Americans.

I'm completely baffled.

|1.9.08 @ 10:13AM|#

The issues should be on the table, not the man.

B.S., this is a PRESIDENTIAL campaign, it's all about the man. we are not electing issues and issues don't make decisions, individuals do, and this one seems to be sorely lacking in good judgement.

|1.9.08 @ 10:13AM|#

Shane,

Libertarianism doesn't begin and end with Ron Paul. Libertarianism begins and ends with unity among libertarians. That's what this was about. We are unifying behind Paul's ideas and statements and if we scatter now, we're basically admitting that it was all a cult of personality, that his message is null and void because of him. If we stick this out and stay together, keep pushing the message with him as the standard bearer, we've shown ourselves to be an actual cohesive force to be bargained with, not a group of ragtag college students with too much time on our hands.

You've got to ignore the trolls like Jack and Dondero and Edward. They're here to distract us from the real goals. We've got to keep promoting Paul as what he stands for, admitting his faults, but promoting his aspirations.

|1.9.08 @ 10:13AM|#

As noted on another thread, this will always be a challenge for libertarians. If you support freedom, individual choice and responsibility and tolerance... some of the people sitting on your couch are going to be those who are not welcome anywhere else. Some of the goofballs who think the income tax is illegal and can talk for hours about seigniorage also have other crackpot ideas including racist and homophobic ideas. This is not a "Ron Paul" problem; it is a libertarian problem.

|1.9.08 @ 10:14AM|#

But not all of us are your type, who likes being a non-entity who can endlessly gripe and complain because you get more pleasure out of that than you would from actually...winning.

We're never gonna win if we drop support for our candidate at the first sign that he's not perfect. I'm not just talking about this; I'm talking about the evolution question, and the immigration ad before that.

RP Supporter|1.9.08 @ 10:14AM|#

I guess this kind of swiftboating is taken in stride by old professional politicains and their wonks, but is hitting the earnest young lovers of liberty like a smack in the kisser by a dead fish.

|1.9.08 @ 10:15AM|#

B.S., this is a PRESIDENTIAL campaign, it's all about the man. we are not electing issues and issues don't make decisions, individuals do, and this one seems to be sorely lacking in good judgement.

BS on you. Paul as a president would be ineffectual. Congress would just overrule him in any case. Paul as a unifying force for the coming mental shift towards libertarianism is something else. If we're ever going to grow the cause, we need unification and if it takes a flawed candidate to get that unification, so be it.

|1.9.08 @ 10:15AM|#

Awesome. The Revolution is now entrenched in navel gazing and mea culpas just as NeoChick and Co. were hoping.

|1.9.08 @ 10:15AM|#

Maybe I don't know you well enough though, are you a different breed of objectivist (or perhaps not one at all)?

Different breed, man. I actually read the stuff, to start with.

Objectivist groups are infamous for so-called "excommunications", wherein minor points of disagreement were grounds for expulsion from the intellectual circle, and it started with the She-God of Objectivism herself, which is why we all got stuck with crappy Peikoff owning the literature.

Bastard.

Anywho, I digress. The larger point is that libertarians and their philosopher-kings aren't OK with big-tents yet. For some reason we just HAVE to hash out and get nasty about Minarchism v. ACism (for example) BEFORE we can go and do ANYTHING remotely libertarian.

And then if we don't like the answers we're getting we walk down the street and start a "The True Church of the Libertarians (Reformed)(Reformed again)."

Episiarch|1.9.08 @ 10:16AM|#

I'm cancelling my subscription, for sure, and will no longer be steering like-minded souls to your magazine, or this site.

Drink.

I think people who are saying that in truth this is a non-issue are missing the point.

The point is that a) this blindsided a lot of Ron Paul supporters, b) it will be perceived the way that it was intended by Kirchick to be perceived and whining about how it's "out of context" isn't going to change that, and c) that perception is FUCKING NEGATIVE.

This is a blow to Paul, and therefore to the movement he is spearheading. Nitpicking it won't change that. Those of us who continue to support the movement will move on and try to salvage everything possible, but we just got kneecapped. It doesn't mean that the whole thing is over, it's just a significant setback.

|1.9.08 @ 10:16AM|#

Maybe I'm missing why "Move Along...nothing to see here" really isn't the proper response in this case.

Apparently, the MSM agrees with you. Search Ron Paul in Google News and barely a mention pops up.

Is it possible this really is old news to them, and they don't feel the need to rehash it?

|1.9.08 @ 10:19AM|#

I'll say this, i'm a young guy in my 20s with a good job a lot of friends, 2 kids and a good head on my shoulders. I don't care about the history of LRC and the like in libertarianism, i don't care that "it was the early 90s", i don't even care about all the old libertarians complaining that they never win. Racism and/or incompetence of this level are not acceptable to me for any candidate, and i will not vote for or continue to support one who either shares these views or does virtually nothing to stay ahead of being associated with them.

All the old farts and paleocons are going to be gone and their racism with them, but few young people in this country are going to support a guy who has been associated with this regadless of how many times he says "liberty".

|1.9.08 @ 10:19AM|#

Ok, but that's only relevant if you think the "due diligence" point for finding out what someone is saying under your name and reputation is somewhere between four and ten years.

The overwhelming impression I'm getting from the Paul fans here and elsewhere is more or less, "even if he doesn believe these things, it's not that much of a big deal," either because they like his policy positions or are more or less sympathetic to the newsletters' views. This is the kind of stuff that boots libertarianism back out of the mainstream and covering your ears and calling troll on everyone who isn't in love with Dr Ron won't help

|1.9.08 @ 10:20AM|#

Pig Mannix,

The Don Black contribution "scandal" was all over the blogosphere for a week before the MSM picked up on it. So we're not out of the woods by a long shot.

Also, given how much of Paul's support is on the Internet, the MSM picking up on this might not even matter; the damage is done already.

|1.9.08 @ 10:21AM|#

We need to keep our eyes on the prize here. The White House is not the end. It's a means to an end. And there are other means as well. Such as continuing to heap scorn on both major parties (even as I become a member of one) until they get a clue. Such as exposing the world to things such as SWAT raids on old ladies' poker games. Such as wasting billions on wars against drugs and obesity. And on and on.

I will vote for Paul. Because it's about the message. As others have said, his response to this fiasco is disappointing at best, but he is still the best man for the job.

Episiarch|1.9.08 @ 10:21AM|#

Do I have a stutter or something? Where did I ever say I stopped supporting Ron Paul, or couldn't handle dirty politics or anything like that? I said I was disappointed. Check your dictionaries; that doesn't mean "giving up".

adrian|1.9.08 @ 10:22AM|#

Have to agree with GEE. Enjoy your retreat to the fringe.

someone once said something about gift horses...

|1.9.08 @ 10:22AM|#

I never deluded myself into thinking Dr Paul actually had a shot at the Presidency; but I thought he could provide an invaluable service to us all by helping to shape, and redirect, the debate about what this country really stands for, and where it needs to go. I still think that.

A lot of young, pro-freedom people have been energized and drawn into the process. If I were a conspiracist, I might think the "establishment Democrats" don't like the doctor because he has been siphoning off young people who might otherwise be duped into falling for the big government = compassion ruse.

|1.9.08 @ 10:22AM|#

Ayn Randian,

Exactly the right question: Geez, what's worth exploring? What's the "it" here? The fact that there are some old-timey paleos with libertarian sympathies who flirt with racism?

I'd say the answer is, "Why the non-racist majority didn't kick these barbaric thugs in the nuts the first time they stuck their filthy heads up, instead of keeping company with them."

Face it, this is not the only axis between the racist hard-right and libertarianism. Hell, there's a guy up there who can't find anything improper in any of the newsletters!

|1.9.08 @ 10:22AM|#

Goodbye Shane...may I suggest Obama, so far he's probably the only candidate that could have said or been close to someone that said something negative about blacks...and get away with it.

Sam Grove|1.9.08 @ 10:23AM|#

It's not about Ron Paul.

Here, let's say it.

We do solemnly aver that racism is a particularly ugly form of collectivism, and we oppose it in all its manifestations.

This is part (just a part) of the reason we support that war on drugs and the inflationary policies of the government and the spending that requires it.

Get over it. There does not seem to be a perfect libertarian candidate willing to run.

God knows, I don't want my FBI file brought out.

|1.9.08 @ 10:24AM|#

The newsletter doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things because the Paul candidacy never really mattered in the grand scheme of things. Some long-suffering libertarians became WAY too excited because Paul raised a bunch of money and showed evidence of some support on the ground. A year ago, how many people were predicting Paul would pull eight percent in NH?

Deep down, I think many libertarians believe that if the rest of the world were just a little smarter or more open minded, that they would see the obvious Truth of libertarianism. And, when there is a little bubble, a coalition of the disaffected, they think, "Hey, this could be IT. We're finally breaking through." Libertarians, my friends, are closet romantics.

Bingo|1.9.08 @ 10:24AM|#

Okay yesterday someone posted a link to a Free Market News website article from July 2007 debunking this with a statement from the Paul campaign. All James Kirchick did was re-write the same old smears. This isn't news to anyone except starry-eyed libertarians.

I've seen fuck-all to mention of this in the mainstream reporting, even The Corner didn't have much to say.

So some bad stuff was published under Ron Paul's name 15 years ago, so he did it for the money. Whatever, I don't see what the big deal is if he doesn't believe those things. The fact that the libertarian movement is doing massive amounts of kneejerk damage control and "shame on you Ron Paul" finger pointing on this one is ugly.

From The Keystrokes of John Q.|1.9.08 @ 10:26AM|#

You can't win a campaign on meet up groups and pre-paid phones. We had to beg them for a front office in El Paso County Colorado. The Largest Republican County in the state. They just need to get aggressive and realistic about campaigning.

The Wine Commonsewer|1.9.08 @ 10:26AM|#

Ron Paul DID NOT sign the Patriot Act, nor did he authorize a pointless war which has killed almost 4,000 Americans.

Of course you're baffled. Get your priorities straight, RP might be a racist.

|1.9.08 @ 10:26AM|#

Wendy McElroy pens an open appeal to the primary ghost-writer:

Here's my problem with this: it's all good and well that the author owns up to this, but the fact is, the author isn't the one running for president.

If Ron Paul were president, and some of his subordinates were involved in some wrong-doing, would you want a President Paul to wait until the wrong doers owned up, or would you want him to pro-actively get the facts out and clean house?

An appeal to the author is fine and dandy, but as the candidate, the onus is on Paul to clear the air.

|1.9.08 @ 10:27AM|#

joe,

its still rumor whether Paul knew explicitly about the newsletters or not, but this is all distractions. However, given your party choice, I wouldn't expect you to forgive Paul this. Your candidates have many faults I find repugnant, but none has ever been associated with saying anything mean about African Americans

|1.9.08 @ 10:27AM|#

Racism and/or incompetence of this level are not acceptable to me for any candidate

Then you'll be voting for Rudy, I suppose.

|1.9.08 @ 10:27AM|#

Ok, but that's only relevant if you think the "due diligence" point for finding out what someone is saying under your name and reputation is somewhere between four and ten years.

Considering how many times you mentioned "over a decade", it would seem you think it is relevant. Yes, four years is a long time to be out of control of this stuff, but ten or twenty years (as Kirchick said in the original Tucker interview) is much, much worse. Keep in mind this wasn't going on during the Internet era; unless he was being mailed a copy, he really wouldn't have had any way of knowing what was being published. Obviously, it was a foolish decision to lend out his name, but everybody makes mistakes, no?

I mean, if you're waiting for a politician who never made a stupid mistake for his whole life, you're going to be waiting a long time. My problem with capital-L Libertarians is that they seem content to do just that...

|1.9.08 @ 10:27AM|#

There are quite a few things that killed my support for Paul months ago:

#1: The newsletters and his campaign's reaction thereto. I first heard about the newsletters in May of '07. I've been making fun of the whole fleet-footed blacks thing for months now. There's some seriously virulent racism going on, and Paul's reaction to this really, really, really has been underwhelming since it was first unearthed during his Congressional runs.

#2: Immigration

#3: 14th Amendment

#4: Darfur divestment: Somehow he votes against a bill that would prevent the federal government from 1) spending money 2) overseas. What the fuck? How is this in any way consistent with his stated politics? It's just so bizarre that it gives credence to concerns that he's using libertarianism as a cover for racism.

#5: His involvement in the anti-psychiatry movement.

#6: War on Christians/Christmas bullshit

Because of this, it's been hard to read Reason's favorable coverage of Ron Paul for some time now. He has way too many skeletons in his closet.

|1.9.08 @ 10:28AM|#

Give 'em a few days Pig. They are slow and covering all the hoopla in a big state like NH was straining their budgets. It'll start on Friday, crest on Sunday and be gone by Michigan. The lasting damage to Paul will leave a mark, though, he's a 2% here on out.

|1.9.08 @ 10:28AM|#

"Goodbye Shane...may I suggest Obama, so far he's probably the only candidate that could have said or been close to someone that said something negative about blacks...and get away with it."

Classic. The black man can complain about black folks and white people can't because of PC. Boo fucking Hoo. That's the way it is. You want to be elected you can't support or be associated with racism, it's that simple. The fact is this wouldn't be anissue if the words were not printed, if Paul didn't give them permission to use his name, and if he had stayed on top of what was being written. That's all the truth and i(and most others) don't equate racist rants and conspiracy theories the same as warmongering or socialism. it's completely different catagory of fuckedupness. You can't deny the facts, you can't deny how it appears to the "uninitiated" and you can't dismiss or wish it away by calling it "old news". The rest of the voting public wouldn't let you and i wouldn't want them to. It's just wrong and it needs address not tolerated regardless of who it is.

The Wine Commonsewer|1.9.08 @ 10:29AM|#

....which is why we all got stuck with crappy Peikoff owning the literature.

Amen, Brah.

Being a pious water boy paid off for Lenny in the end.

Sam Grove|1.9.08 @ 10:30AM|#

I'm going to vote for Ron Paul in the primary.
Anyone who listens to him does not doubt his sincerity when he speaks against racism or on any other matter.

Ron Paul is speaking correctly on the critical issues:

1: End the war
2: End the empire
3: End the war on drugs
4: Stop monetary inflation
5: End the welfare state
6: Tax cuts must be tied to a reduction of government spending.

What more do you want?

Hits the fan|1.9.08 @ 10:30AM|#

McElroy pretty much outed the culprit, IMHO:

Lew Rockwell.

She was a regular contributor to his website.

Come on, Lew. We await your response.

|1.9.08 @ 10:30AM|#

Yeah, minimizing this and using diminutive terms for exactly how bad the sentiments expressed in those newsletters probably isn't the best way to send the message that those sentiments run counter to the message of libertarianism.

"Ron Paul has nothing to do with, and completely renounces, those harmless and poorly-expressed newsletters, which aren't nearly as bad as HEY LOOK OVER THERE!"

Russ 2000|1.9.08 @ 10:31AM|#

Why the non-racist majority didn't kick these barbaric thugs in the nuts the first time they stuck their filthy heads up, instead of keeping company with them."

Perhaps it's because non-racists are not the majority.

Rhywun|1.9.08 @ 10:31AM|#

The thing that gets me is how anyone could conflate those writings with "libertarianism". Lumping everyone into tribes and pre-judging their behavior is the antithesis of libertarianism. Right?

As for Ron Paul, as someone stated above, he's hardly the be-all end-all of libertarianism, given that some of his positions are decidedly "unlibertarian".

Do you mean to tell me, for example, that "limp-wristed" - in the context of humor/sarcasm - references to gays is cause for ALARM?

No, but it's a disgusting display of tribalism that Paul should be ashamed to have ever been associated with.

PS. Statements like "95% of blacks in DC are criminals"--a demonstrable lie--ARE racist. Not sure how could possibly interpret that otherwise.

Roach|1.9.08 @ 10:31AM|#

This new breed of libertarians has a real problem. Back in the day, libertarians were adamant that private discrimination was not a real serious thing, and the government should therefore not do anything about it. You associate or disassociate with whom you choose, and it's no more harmful than if I don't ask you to the dance. The new generation says discrimination is a terrible thing, really evil, but that government shouldn't do anything about it in the name of consistency and commitment to libertarian principles. 19th Century Liberals said the same thing, but found this tension between liberty and equality was unsustainable and unpersuasive. They became today's liberals.

Second, I find this whole episode amusing. Libertarians have been defending Paul and flirting with some nutty ideas themselves, not least 9/11 conspiracy theories. Most Americans find this deeply offensive, and Paul's failure to reign in and condemn this significant cadre of supporters said a lot about his judgment and his (lack of) management ability. Since the Presidency is not just the head of a philosophy club but an executive, these are serious failing.

Finally, I think libertarians for a long time have preferred to sweep under the rug the consequences of their philosophy and imagine that everyone would be a libertarian if they only understood what libertarians (like Paul) were about. But this is not true, and libertarians resort to wishful thinking, denial, or changing the subject when the obvious implications of libertarianism become apparent, to wit:

Libertarianism means we can have discriminatory schools, businesses, private clubs, billboards, newspapers, and the like, even though these things have been effectively eliminated through law.

Libertarianism means people starve to death if private charity can't help them out.

Libertarianism means that offensive behavior--beastiliaty, adult incest--cannot be prohibited by law.

Libertarianism has a tough time about what to do for the welfare of irresponsible parties like children and the mentally ill.

Libertarianism is hostile to law enforcement, even though people in high crime areas want strict law enforcement on a range of things, including "lifestyle" offenses like graffiti, prostitution, and jay-walking.

Libertarianism means no public schools, no public parks, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no Social Security, no space program, etc. I agree with much of this, but it's deeply unpopular. People who are (a) not that wealthy and (b) have political power are perfectly interested in voting for your money.

Libertarianism as of late thinks its the friend of minorities. But the federal government exercising federal power against states and individuals is why there is almost no formal discrimination today. The anti-government rhetoric of libertarians doesn't jibe with these people.

Libertarianism sometimes forgets we're in a community with some common interests. It makes no distinction of citizens and enemies of the country (i.e., al Qaeda), and this exquisite concern for the rights and procedures applied to our enemies strikes most people who don't want to get blown up by Muslims as naive.

|1.9.08 @ 10:32AM|#

I'd say the answer is, "Why the non-racist majority didn't kick these barbaric thugs in the nuts the first time they stuck their filthy heads up, instead of keeping company with them."

You might want to ask your heroes Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, JFK, RFK, about that. Sometimes you have to associate with people you find repugnant if you're going to get anything done in politics (and in the case of libertarianism, if you're even going to keep the movement alive).

|1.9.08 @ 10:32AM|#

So is the ghostwriter presumed to be Lew Rockwell? I don't run in the circles where this would be an open secret, but his name was mentioned in previous threads.

|1.9.08 @ 10:32AM|#

@Hits the fan:

Yeah, Lew Rockwell is my first thought after reading what McElroy wrote.

|1.9.08 @ 10:34AM|#

joe, just remember; it's not virulent bigotry, it's "not having a perfect candidate."

|1.9.08 @ 10:34AM|#

I'd say the answer is, "Why the non-racist majority didn't kick these barbaric thugs in the nuts the first time they stuck their filthy heads up, instead of keeping company with them."

joe, I suppose that it's the same reason that even though in the beginning you were a pretty sympathetic statist I kept listening to you and engaging you. Shoot, we ALL did.

you might not have noticed it joe, but you have changed a lot from what I remember. And engaging people, onerous though we may find them, is the only way to make big change happen.

I'm an evolutionist: I think almost everything happens at the margin and macroevolution doesn't really exist, it's just a convenient concept. Microevolution and the margin are the only way things get changed, and that requires engaging people one at a time.

I mean, should I never quote anyone over at Lew Rockwell because of the company some of them keep? Is image more important than message?

|1.9.08 @ 10:34AM|#

Paul's admitted that this was a mistake many times and he's sad it happened, but you don't think that pointing fingers at the authors isn't kind of vindictive and childish? Paul has said enough for me to feel comfortable explaining it to someone else, but its never good enough for the casual supporter who's basic argument up to now is that Paul will change the world (which probably convinced nobody).

Jerry|1.9.08 @ 10:35AM|#

I also don't see what the big deal is. It is hard to see what the relevance of those TNR snippets is with the rest of the newsletter material. I think people are overreacting.

|1.9.08 @ 10:35AM|#

Jack,

Its fun that you keep conflating what someone else wrote with Paul. Fuckin troll.

|1.9.08 @ 10:36AM|#

This story fits perfectly into the paradigm that libertarians are just a conglomeration of losers, racists, anti-social a-holes, greedy SOBs, and people who want weed legalized...a most unfortunate stereotype, but is it based in fact?

|1.9.08 @ 10:36AM|#

Roach-

libertarianism means the State can't do a damn thing about discrimination, that doesn't mean that we as indivduals have to put up with it, or support it. Yeah you'll have discriminitory schools and they'll catch a lot of shit for being discrimintory, just not by and throught the State. honestly i don't see the problem with your "new generation" observation, it's true and something to be celebrated. The other way of thinking is what has keep you guys as fringe.

|1.9.08 @ 10:37AM|#

Mencken!? WTF? Who knew boobiosie was code for black people?

|1.9.08 @ 10:37AM|#

Here's the other thing, if it was Rockwell (and I'm sure that it was) Paul would be smart to out that fucker, throw that whole gang out in the cold and embrace "us", the cosmopolitan libertarians and the young who find this crap onerous.

I have to keep in mind, though, that I love my grandparents even though they say "colored" instead of "black" instead of "African American".

|1.9.08 @ 10:38AM|#

crimethink,

You might want to ask your heroes Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, JFK, RFK, about that.

Every single one of those men died before I was born, and with the exception of Wilson (who died an entire lifetime before I was born), none of them came within a thousand miles of "The only reason the LA riots ended was because it was time to pick up the welfare checks." By contrast you're going to vote for Ron Paul this year.

I would absolutely not associate myself with anyone who expressed anything remotely similar to the sentiments in those newsletters.

If you weren't so blindly partisan, you wouldn't assume that Woodrow Wilson was a "hero" of mine because he had a D after his name before my great-grandfather immigrated. But, then, if you weren't so blindly partisan, you'd realize that it is actually BAD to put out newsletters under your name like these, even when it's your guy's name.

|1.9.08 @ 10:39AM|#

Sorry that comment was to Roach by me, not from him.

|1.9.08 @ 10:39AM|#

LIT, count how many times I accused RP of writing those things, then compare that with how many times I explicity based my point on it not being relevant whether he wrote them. I think I made perfectly clear a couple times that he didn't

"I don't care if he didn't write it, his name is on it"

" finding out what someone is saying under your name and reputation"

for two

|1.9.08 @ 10:39AM|#

Joe:

"Face it, this is not the only axis between the racist hard-right and libertarianism."

Please. There's no more that "axis" than there is an axis between the racist hard-left and libertarianism. "Hey, look at me...because I observe a drooling fool standing next to a libertarian, I can assert an "axis" between drooling fools and libertarians!"

"Hell, there's a guy up there who can't find anything improper in any of the newsletters!"

You should learn how to read. I actually cited the "improper" nature of some comments ("politically-incorrect" is the term I used, i.e. improper). What I can't find is any racist or anti-gay comments. Care to cough up ONE, in context? That's ok, I didn't think could.

|1.9.08 @ 10:40AM|#

Ayn Randian:
Is image more important than message?

I can only assume you are asking this rhetorically, given that we are talking about politics. Afterall, the image IS the message.

|1.9.08 @ 10:40AM|#

Ayn Randian,

You engaged me and discussed politics with me, but you never argued for leftist ideas or allowed me to get away with doing so while claiming to speak for you or for libertarianism.

Guy Montag|1.9.08 @ 10:40AM|#

RPS,

I guess this kind of swiftboating is taken in stride by old professional politicains and their wonks, but is hitting the earnest young lovers of liberty like a smack in the kisser by a dead fish.

If this were "swiftboating" then there would be truth in the accusation. This is more like fairbanksing.

|1.9.08 @ 10:41AM|#

Here's the other thing, if it was Rockwell (and I'm sure that it was) Paul would be smart to out that fucker, throw that whole gang out in the cold and embrace "us", the cosmopolitan libertarians and the young who find this crap onerous.

Considering the "cosmopolitan" libertarians have mostly been cool to him from the get-go, why would he want to do that? That's not where his support is coming from, anyway.

Russ 2000|1.9.08 @ 10:41AM|#

Finally, I think libertarians for a long time have preferred to sweep under the rug the consequences of their philosophy

I doubt that. Libertarians have pretty much always said up front that their philosophy results in YOU having to let your neighbor be a total asshole as long as they aren't murdering, robbing, or battering another person against his will.

Rhywun|1.9.08 @ 10:41AM|#

#5: His involvement in the anti-psychiatry movement.

He's a Scientologist?!

|1.9.08 @ 10:42AM|#

Every single one of those men died before I was born, and with the exception of Wilson (who died an entire lifetime before I was born), none of them came within a thousand miles of "The only reason the LA riots ended was because it was time to pick up the welfare checks."

I didn't say FDR, JFK, Truman, RFK actually wrote those things or said them, and probably they did not believe them. But they definitely, absolutely associated with people who said (and did) much worse things in regard to race, and profited politically from this association, far more than libertarians profited from their association with racist groups.

|1.9.08 @ 10:43AM|#

Ayn_Randian | January 9, 2008, 10:34am |
Is image more important than message?"


You silly silly rabbit, this is America, and you must never forget:
IMAGE IS EVRYTHING!!!

R C Dean|1.9.08 @ 10:44AM|#

The identity of the author of the 'objectionable' material from past issues of Ron Paul's Newsletter -- material that is currently being used by major media to skewer Paul [see blog post below] -- is an open secret within the circles in which I run. The news accounts refer to him merely as an "aide." We call him by his first name.

Jeebus, Wendy. You know who he is. He wrote material for publication. I don't think anybody owes him any obligation to protect his identity. TELL US HIS FRICKIN' NAME! WTF is this faux-ethical "please come forward bullshit!

Why the non-racist majority didn't kick these barbaric thugs in the nuts the first time they stuck their filthy heads up, instead of keeping company with them.

One might ask them same question about the political associates of a former Klan Kleagle now in his, what, fourth decade of wielding enormous power in the Senate, joe. In my books, "KKK leader" is far worse than "negligent newsletter publisher."

|1.9.08 @ 10:44AM|#

Jack,

It's called assasination through innuendo.

|1.9.08 @ 10:45AM|#

I doubt that. Libertarians have pretty much always said up front that their philosophy results in YOU having to let your neighbor be a total asshole as long as they aren't murdering, robbing, or battering another person against his will.

It also means you can call him out on his assholeness as well. I'm getting sick of this "how dare libertarians criticize anything about Paul they must not be "real" libertarians" attitude, it stinks.

And the whole boat of "you guys must not want to win, he;s your only shot" is b.s. too. shit, i'd rather lose an election than my principals. otherwise i'm no better than the republicrats.

The Wine Commonsewer|1.9.08 @ 10:47AM|#

I preface this with the comment that I think this thing is going to derail the RP campaign. However, at the moment this seems to be a tempest in the libertarian teapot.

About half the people I know who support RP are not libertarians per se and none of them have said boo about this. Because they don't know. I am getting the emails and they still are the same as they were last week. We'll see if that changes.

First clue will be when people begin to ask me if RP is racist. So far, not a word.

Disclaimer: Not a scientific survey, but I do know (and know of) a lot of RP supporters all across the country.

|1.9.08 @ 10:47AM|#

GEE,

The authors, editors, publishers, staffers, and layout people who put those newsletters together were not "standing next to" Ron Paul. It was called the Ron Paul Political Report. He authorized them to put it out, and did nothing to stop them when they continued to put out crap like,

"The only reason the LA riots ended was because it was time to pick up the welfare checks"

and

"The country is overrun with terrorists, and we can recognize them by the color of their skin."

which, btw, are flagrantly racist statements. We can recognize terrorists by the color of their skin? Are you effing kidding me? Go ahead, put that in context.

|1.9.08 @ 10:48AM|#

My principles aren't the least bit threatened by Ron Paul winning this election. Enough with the melodrama, sheesh.

The Wine Commonsewer|1.9.08 @ 10:48AM|#

So Shane, will you be sitting this election out, or do you have a better candidate than RP in mind? Aside from the LP I mean.

|1.9.08 @ 10:49AM|#

crimethink,

But they definitely, absolutely associated with people who said (and did) much worse things in regard to race, and profited politically from this association You're right, they did. And today, their willigness to do so is treated by Democrats and liberals as a stain on our honor from a dark period in our history. Anyone found doing so today would be tossed out on his ear.

Not defended, as you are doing.

Roach|1.9.08 @ 10:50AM|#

Wow, all these subdemographics of libertarians. Look, there are no libertarians. You're a fringe group. The people that care about abortion also care about the government paying for mammograms. The people that care about guns also don't want Adam and Steve getting married. The people that are for abortion, against social security, and for Adam and Steve are an infintessimal group of people that barely matter. This talk about strategy is going on in a vacuum. No libertarians are winning anything because they don't represent a real, winnable coalition.

Incidentally, I'm not a libertarian. I'm a paleoconservative. I also happen to like Lincoln, Title VII, the abolition of Jim Crow, and all that. And I think this is an appropriate exercise of state power. I think this is especially true when large government actors' discrimination is involved.

At the same time, if our jails are 50 or 60% black because blacks commit 50 or 60% of the crimes, so be it. I think black misbehavior needs to be criticized just as freely as white or Hispanic misbehavior. And I don't think we should shy away from recognizing group patterns in these matters, i.e., 7X murder rate among blacks.

The big difference with me and liberals is that I don't feel guilty. I feel the current legal regime is not too far from where it needs to be on nondiscrimination matters, other than its allowance of discriminatory affirmative action. I don't lose sleep over slavery that happened 150 years ago, and I don't think it's something I or the government needs to atone for. 500,000 Americans shed their blood to stop it; that's atonement enough.

In spite of these palecon views, I don't believe in un-Christian and uncharitable discrimiation, and I don't think government should allow such immorality any more than it should allow other anti-social immorality like gay marriage, hard drug use, or treachery against the government.

|1.9.08 @ 10:51AM|#

RC Dean,

One might ask them same question about the political associates of a former Klan Kleagle now in his, what, fourth decade of wielding enormous power in the Senate, joe.

You mean the one who RENOUNCED and APOLOGIZED FOR the error of his ways? Those newsletters were not written by a former racist; they were written by an active racist.

|1.9.08 @ 10:52AM|#

The Democrats drove the racists out of our party, RC, and into yours, where they were gleefully welcomed. Even at the cost of losing their national majority.

Why haven't libertarians done the same thing, when the stakes for them would be so much lower?

|1.9.08 @ 10:52AM|#

So Shane, will you be sitting this election out, or do you have a better candidate than RP in mind? Aside from the LP I mean.

depends, i was really banking on Paul, and will wait to see what he does now. But if he is a racist or staffs racists or can't come up with something better than "old news", then i'll look 3rd party or sit it out. Racism is a big deal and fuck anyone who tries to dismiss it or ignore it, and fuck anyone who wants me to take someone, anyone, at their word(but only in regard to their current word not their past word) without using my head. there should be no ambiguity about this. Maybe the 50 year old + crowd is used to their own shit, but that doesn't mean i have to eat it.

|1.9.08 @ 10:53AM|#

@Rhywun: Well, his involvement with the anti-psychiatry movement is pretty laffo.

|1.9.08 @ 10:53AM|#

We all knew the attacks were coming. We all knew Ron Paul wasn't a perfect candidate. Yes, this is disappointing, but I will cast my vote for RP next week. I've never voted for a faultless candidate before, and I won't then. Ron messed up big time, it's going to cost him and the movement, but what else can I do? Who is, in total, the candidate that supports my positions best? The answer remains Ron Paul.

|1.9.08 @ 10:53AM|#

"The country is overrun with terrorists, and we can recognize them by the color of their skin."

Tom Tancredo was writing for Paul?

Episiarch|1.9.08 @ 10:54AM|#

In spite of these palecon views, I don't believe in un-Christian and uncharitable discrimiation, and I don't think government should allow such immorality any more than it should allow other anti-social immorality like gay marriage, hard drug use, or treachery against the government.

Glad to know your morality trumps mine and the government should use force to enforce your morality, dickhead.

|1.9.08 @ 10:54AM|#

joe,

Ron Paul is not doing those things today. As far as we know, he made a very foolish mistake in lending out his name in 1985, and then neglected to keep tabs on it. Call it "a stain on his honor from a dark period in his history", though the magnitude of what his associates did is far slighter than what the Democrats' southern allies were up to.

|1.9.08 @ 10:54AM|#

Meanwhile, the democrat party continues to welcome Senator Byrd.

|1.9.08 @ 10:56AM|#

No, he is not doing those things today. And good for him.

As I said before, crimethink, anybody who associated with racists like that would be distinctly unwelcome in the modern Democratic Party.

While those - the actual individuals themselves - who did so are still welcome in the libertarian movement.

|1.9.08 @ 10:57AM|#

The Democrats drove the racists out of our party, RC, and into yours ...

Uh joe -
Does Senator Robert Byrd (D) West Virginia, ring a bell? That house cleaning isn't done yet.
Just sayin'.

|1.9.08 @ 10:57AM|#

I think if Paul handles this properly, his campaign can still survive it. However, what constitutes "properly" in this case is debatable.

My instinct is that he should confront the issue directly, and clear the air as soon as possible,
but so far, every time the issue has surfaced, he's just played it down until it blew over.

Perhaps he's correct to handle it that way, I don't know. But my feeling is that unless he finally drives a wooden stake through it's heart, it'll keep coming back to haunt him, like it has so far.

Episiarch|1.9.08 @ 10:57AM|#

Let's not get into TEAM BLUE HAZ KKK TEAM L HAZ LEW ROCKWELLZ bullshit.

It seems like Ron goofed, is probably not a racist, and wasn't careful enough about a newsletter. Super. But that is completely distinct from what effect this will have on the movement, Paul's campaign, and his supporters.

|1.9.08 @ 10:57AM|#

Meanwhile, the democrat party continues to welcome Senator Byrd. something about 2 wrongs and all the other common sense shit my grandmother would respond with. Fuck Byrd.

DavidS|1.9.08 @ 10:58AM|#

This is not from a newsletter, but a letter to supporters sent out under the letterhead of 'Congressman Ron Paul' and signed by hand (probably photocopied).

I have unmasked the plot for world government, world money, and world central banking. Planned exchange controls to hold you hostage…while the dollar drops down a hole…

I revealed the Red debt bomb set to explode in your bank account…The real, financial reasons Bush invaded Panama. The nightmare of a 'cashless society' (watch out for it, if they get away with the New Money)…

I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or not threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.)

The Bohemian Grove - perverted, pagan playground of the powerful Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica. And the Soviet-style 'smartcard' the Justice Department has in mind for you.

There are eight pages of this stuff...

Doesn't it rather suggest that, if Paul has some loonies in his ranks, they are there because he asked them to join?

Russ 2000|1.9.08 @ 10:58AM|#

It also means you can call him out on his assholeness as well.

See anyone stopping anyone from doing it? You have to be rather naiive to think people aren't going to get defensive, though.

I'm getting sick of this "how dare libertarians criticize anything about Paul they must not be "real" libertarians" attitude, it stinks.

I can't stand ideological purity, either. But most posters here aren't engaging in it. Let Paul take his lumps, we'll see what he's made of.

i'd rather lose an election than my principals.

A mistake of youth. The vanity of principal isn't really any different than the vanity of popularity.

|1.9.08 @ 10:59AM|#

LIT beat me to it. Darn!

|1.9.08 @ 10:59AM|#

joe,

The Dems didn't "drive out" the racists from their party. Rather, the majority changed their political positions to those which those racists couldn't live with, and so they left.

Unfortunately for libertarians, racists have no problem living with our positions. That doesn't mean we should change them.

|1.9.08 @ 10:59AM|#

Meanwhile, the democrat party continues to welcome Senator Byrd.

...who has renounced racism and has been fighting it for decades.

While the author of those newsletters, who has never renounced the views therein, is apparently a member in good standing in the libertarian movement.

Yup, we liberals forgive racists who see the error of their ways. That last bit is a rather significant condition for us, though, and doesn't seem to be for you.

|1.9.08 @ 11:01AM|#

Jesus, is stupidity mandatory, or did you all volunteer?

Former racist. Active racist.

Used to believe in racist ideas. Believes, and loudly advocates for, racist ideas.

None of you are dumb enough not to get this kindergarten-level concept, so stop faking it.

Edward|1.9.08 @ 11:01AM|#

"It was money for Ron. It was money for the writers. And it was a way of keeping Ron's name in the minds of right wingers with money ... future donors."

This puts his keeping the Nazi money into perspective. He's been taking it all along. But why haven't the mainstream media picked this upt yet?

Going ahead and voting for him anyway taps into a long tradition of closing one's eyes to the flaws in the leader. Ask the Stalinists.

|1.9.08 @ 11:01AM|#

The problem is that the bulk of the universe thinks that the libertarian is probably like the cosmopolitan except not with cranberry juice. Then, someone like Paul comes along and says a few things and doesn't sound completely insane and they think, "Hmmm... that sounds reasonable." Then, standing around the water cooler someone tells them, "Yeah, Ron Paul, he's a libertarian who wrote some racist stuff." And they think, "Oh, Hell, what was I thinking? The libertarian isn't a drink. It's those nuts who write those long letters to the editors and refuse to pay taxes."

Yes, that is terribly wrong. It is also terribly how America works.

|1.9.08 @ 11:02AM|#

"The country is overrun with terrorists, and we can recognize them by the color of their skin."

Okay, joe. I'm not on the side of "nothing objectionable was written," but this is a dishonest argument you're making. How about including the first part of that sentence? The part along the lines of "Some people are going to conclude that..."

That's the sort of thing that makes me conclude this is a smear piece. It looks like there were maybe one or two articles with actual, objectionable content (from which many of the damning quotes were taken), and most (if not all) of the rest is half-truth, deliberately and dishonestly edited to make individual quotes look racist when they aren't.

kinnath|1.9.08 @ 11:03AM|#

I voted for the man I watched on Bill Moyers last weekend. I have no qualms about it.

However, it's impossible to reconcile the past newsletters with the man I voted for. And, it's beyond comprehension why Ron Paul (the man today) doesn't publicly torch the jackass that wrote those newsletters.

|1.9.08 @ 11:05AM|#

Ed Crane and CATO did disassociate from RP a long time ago. In the early nineties, the Libertarian Party largely stopped trumpeting RP as he became associated with Rockwell/Rothbard paleos. The LP even ran candidates in congressional races against him.
Today's LP is largely run by people who weren't around in the early 90s and knew nothing of this RP past. Those with long memories should have spoken up (or maybe they did and were ignored, or were seduced by the prospect of thousands of new young people being attracted to his libertarian (and non-racist) 2007 message.

Edward|1.9.08 @ 11:05AM|#

This also explains the racist and anti-Semitic stuff I have long noticed here. I actually had no idea that libertarianism had a racist streak and assumed that the racists were outsider trolls like me.

|1.9.08 @ 11:06AM|#

...who has renounced racism and has been fighting it for decades.

which leads me to believe you think Paul is racist.

DavidS|1.9.08 @ 11:06AM|#

[i]This puts his keeping the Nazi money into perspective. He's been taking it all along.[/i]

Not just taking it, actively soliciting it...

Dave W.|1.9.08 @ 11:06AM|#

None of you are dumb enough not to get this kindergarten-level concept, so stop faking it.

I feel your pain, joe.

|1.9.08 @ 11:06AM|#

Jack Boone,

Writing in a manner so as to distance yourself from the idea you're pushing is what a prosecutor would call "evidence of awareness."

|1.9.08 @ 11:06AM|#

DavidS,

That letter in total reads like a completely loony rewrite of Harry Browne's stuff. When is the complete collapse of our economy coming, anyway; I'm getting tired of hoarding all this silver.

Jerry|1.9.08 @ 11:06AM|#

@joe
Then those who hav kept this as an open secret within the libertarian movement are as much to blame as the author, especially when they find it convenient to ask the author to come public right now, instead of 15 years ago.

|1.9.08 @ 11:08AM|#

LIT,

No, I think the author and editor of those newsletters is racist. I still consider it much more likely that Paul just wasn't minding the store.

|1.9.08 @ 11:09AM|#

Joe:

"The authors, editors, publishers, staffers, and layout people who put those newsletters together were not "standing next to" Ron Paul. It was called the Ron Paul Political Report."

I know a "legalize pot" guy working for the Paul campaign. He also doesn't believe in private property. Paul knows who he is and what he believes. "Lookee, lookee...what an axis!"

"Go ahead, put that in context."

I can't, because you failed to provide the cite.

Rhywun|1.9.08 @ 11:10AM|#

I don't think we should shy away from recognizing group patterns in these matters ... I don't believe in un-Christian and uncharitable discrimiation

Wow. How many personalities are in there?

|1.9.08 @ 11:10AM|#

Anyway, the Paul campaign has always been about spreading ideas than winning the White House.

If this dark episode can be shown to be a management failure rather than a moral failure on Paul's part, it will demonstrate that Paul is completely unfit to be the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, but does not necessarily have to destory his ability to get his message out.

But the first step is admitting you have a problem.

|1.9.08 @ 11:11AM|#

A mistake of youth. The vanity of principal isn't really any different than the vanity of popularity.

In my head i know this. But it still fucking stinks. I guess it's all in where you draw the line. I don't like his immigration stance or his association with the truthers(alex jones show is example), but i was willing to let that slide. Even with the Don Black thing, and the Bill White thing, i thought "hey, that's just the MSM making up conclusions". But damnit, those make him look bad enough to the people i'm trying to talk to about voting for Paul, now i got my parents calling me back asking questions about newsletters that have Paul's name on it spouting racist b.s.(i'm mixed race by the way), and my sister thinks i'm a closet truther.

I'm getting the feeling there's more projected onto Paul by his supporters than we like to admit, the movement is real, but does the man deserve it? and who else have i got? the whole thing fucking stinks.

Egosumabbas|1.9.08 @ 11:11AM|#

I just want to know who the prick is who wrote the newsletters in question so I can egg his car and house write him an angry letter telling him how angry I am with him.

|1.9.08 @ 11:12AM|#

A lot of this crap goes to the heart of limited government. A lot people in the libertarian movement remind me of "war is not the answer" nitwit liberals. I see those bumper stickers and think "war has solved a hell of lot and especially solves a lot when someone tries to invade and enslave you." A lot of libertarians are the same way about "big government never solved anything." Well that is bullshit, big government ended slavery, kept the union together, won two world wars and ended Jim Crow. Given a choice between having the small government of 1859 and still having slavery or worse yet a divided union and having big government, I am taking big government for all its faults. Given a choice between having the Lockner Court back and still having Jim Crow or big government, I am taking big government.

Now, the rational and moral argument to make is yes big government did do those things and they were necessary and good but we don't have slavery or Jim Crow anymore and we are not fighting a world war and if we did it would be a different kind of war and wouldn't require the massive mobilizations that the first two did. This is the present and future and in the present and future, small limited government is our best hope. Thanks big government but your job is done.

Some libertarians for whatever reason cannot do that. Instead, they sit around and rehash 40 or 100 year old political fights and say immoral and ill-considered things like the Union cause in the Civil War was immoral and the Civil Rights Act was wrong and should have never happened and so forth. They end up basically saying that they would have fought for the South and to ensure slavery had they been alive in the 1860s, would have let the Nazis take over most of the world in the 1940s and would have stood at the schoolhouse door a century later and then wonder why people think they are racist and anti-Semitic. The answer as to why they do that is that I think some of them are just pedantic and don't think through what the real consequences of slavery or Jim Crow not ending when they did. Others I think are just flat out racist and miss the old days of white supremacy.

DavidS|1.9.08 @ 11:12AM|#

John-David,

I really like the line that "history shows that bad times offer the greatest profit opportunities... help me help you survive the New Money and other financial debacles. You must come through not only unscathed, but richer."

Call 1-800-RON-PAUL now!!!

Sam Grove|1.9.08 @ 11:15AM|#

There is zip about Ron Paul in the San Jose Mercury News today.
The MSM seems content to continue ignoring him.

|1.9.08 @ 11:16AM|#

Oh, c'mon guys. In numerous newsletters and fundraising letters under his RP's name there is the nuttiest stuff, full of sly racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia and paranoid delusions, and he never knew about it? He had to know, and he could and should have squashed it, at the very, very least...

Now that said, I disagree with joe that movements should be about "purging" their ranks of evil-doers. All movements can do is explicitly say they are for x, y and z and organize to effect x, y and z. If nutjob C wants to spend his time fighting for x, y and z, maybe for all the wrong reasons, then who cares? All you have to do morally I suggest is oppose C when he starts to push for nutview A (this post brought to you by the letters...).

Paul currently is not pushing any policy that I am aware of that is racist, anti-Semitic or overly nutty, so I think one can vote for him without getting their hands dirty...

Roach|1.9.08 @ 11:17AM|#

Rhywun, it's really simple. It means I believe in truth and justice as well. With truth, it means I'll recognize race (and sex, nationality, old newsletters, whatever) in making judgments.

Group judgments have all the uncertainty and caveats of any judgment about groups. Individual judgments have all the precision of any judgment about individuals. But intelligent group generalizations on which we can make intelligent policies that apply to groups--say allowing racial profiling at airports--doesn't mean that I'll then make unjust assumptions about individuals, particularly when their individually demonstrated character shows otherwise. At the same time, triage in the application of state force (and individual discrimination) makes a lot of sense when I don't have all the facts. Thus I worry about men more than women. Young more than old. And black more than white. That doesn't mean I won't have a black friend or hire a black for a job. Such true racism makes no sense and goes against easily ascertained facts about someone's individual behavior.

This used to be common sense to most people. It's the difference between intelligent, open-minded appraisal of reality--including race--and the irrational and counter-factual, across-the-board generalization about race inherent in things like Jim Crow (and affirmative action) even when that generalization does not apply in an indiviudal case.

|1.9.08 @ 11:18AM|#

Too many libertarians have forgotten the history of the 19th century abolitionist movement. Individual socialism was classical liberalism. The free soil movement is the American foundation for modern libertarianism. The abolitionist movement gave us Lochner, and we fucked it up by kowtowing to racists for 150 years.

|1.9.08 @ 11:18AM|#

Writing in a manner so as to distance yourself from the idea you're pushing is what a prosecutor would call "evidence of awareness."

In that case, what would a prosecutor call "dishonestly editing out part of a sentence to support false allegations of racism against someone not the author of said sentence," joe?

Seriously, I'm just pointing out that the quote was edited to make it look more damning, and that undermines TNR's case.

Bingo|1.9.08 @ 11:19AM|#

John, you make some good points.

|1.9.08 @ 11:19AM|#

John
Don't you know that Magical Mystical Market Man with his Friedmanite Ring of Power and Hayekian Cloak of Invincibility would have ended slavery, segregation and Nazism? You're just not paying attention...

hiroshima|1.9.08 @ 11:20AM|#

truman was in the klan.

R C Dean|1.9.08 @ 11:20AM|#

You mean the one who RENOUNCED and APOLOGIZED FOR the error of his ways? Those newsletters were not written by a former racist; they were written by an active racist.

(1) Your Kleagle was far more of an active racist than anything Ron Paul was alleged to have done.

(2) How touching that you take his apology at face value.

(3) Have you not read Ron Paul's denunciation and apology for what was published under his name?

C'mon, joe. On a scale of 1 to 10, being a Klan Kleagle has got to be an 8 or 9, while being grossly negligent about a scuzzy newsletter is, what, a 3? Yet you give the Dems a pass for taking the Kleagle at his word and reaping enormous financial and political benefits from his political machine, and ignore the renunciation and apology of the OB/GYN from Texas.

Gimme a break.

The Democrats drove the racists out of our party, RC, and into yours ...


You obviously have not spent any time around union members or leadership. I have, and I can assure you many of them are both (a) racists and (b) active Democratic operatives.

|1.9.08 @ 11:23AM|#

MNG,

It is almost certainly not the case that the Ron Paul Political Report ended up a hotbed of vile bigotry because of libertarians' support for laissez-faire economics, moderst foreign policy, and the other core tenants of libertariansim as I understand them.

I think there has been a strain of "no enemies on the right" that, at least in previous generations, led libertarians to make common cause with some very bad people.

Nutjob C thought he would be welcome to push Nutview A through libertarian outlets, and he was right, at least in the recent past. If the libertarian movement was operating according to the principles I see expressed in Reason Magazine, Nutjob C would have no more reason to believe he'd be welcome there than in the Democratic Party.

R C Dean|1.9.08 @ 11:24AM|#

Believes, and loudly advocates for, racist ideas.

Christ on a crutch, joe, have you read none of what Ron Paul personally has actually said about race?

|1.9.08 @ 11:24AM|#

"Too many libertarians have forgotten the history of the 19th century abolitionist movement. Individual socialism was classical liberalism. The free soil movement is the American foundation for modern libertarianism. The abolitionist movement gave us Lochner, and we fucked it up by kowtowing to racists for 150 years."

ABsolutely. Also, libertarians if they were honest and knew any history should hate the antebellum South. It was totally elites, agressively imperialist, it was committed to expanding slavery throughout all of the territories and its radical ideologes dreamed of conquering the entire Western Hemisphere and creating a giant slave based empire. It was also, for its rethoric otherwise, anti-federalist when it suited its purposes. Dread Scott was one of the most anti-states' rights decisions of all time. It essentially told the State of Illinois that it couldn't preclude slavery within its borders as long as it involved Southerns. The South also rejected the idea of self detmination in the territories and sent 1000s of terrorists into Kansas to ensure that voted pro slave before it was admitted to the Union. There was nothing libertarian about the Old South. Yet, some libertarians seem to have this affinity for it? Why could that be?

|1.9.08 @ 11:24AM|#

"How touching that you take his apology at face value."

RC-I imagine what is taken at face value is Senator Byrd's countless votes fighting FOR civil rights following his apology. The same can be said of another Democrat, Hugo Black. As joe said it's not that liberals hate former racists, but current racists.

Yes, I know many union men who are Democrats and racist (and many non-union men who are both, and many union men who are neither, etc). But joe's point is that the Democratic Party takes positions consistently which minorities overwhelmingly agree are "not racist" and in fact "anti-racist."

|1.9.08 @ 11:24AM|#

The day joe finally turned into Edward.

|1.9.08 @ 11:25AM|#

Jake Boone,

You read those newsletters, and you either grasp what the writer was saying, or you work really hard not to.

And, oh yeah, screw the New Republic and the horse they rode in on.

|1.9.08 @ 11:27AM|#

"It is almost certainly not the case that the Ron Paul Political Report ended up a hotbed of vile bigotry because of libertarians' support for laissez-faire economics, moderst foreign policy, and the other core tenants of libertariansim as I understand them."

joe
I think it's more nuanced than that...Most of the core positions of libertarianism can fit nicely with racism. Like I said yesterday, a libertarian could be against government programs because they violate rights, promote paternalism and ultimately harm those they intend to help, or a libertarian could be against government programs because many of them help various minority groups...

Laudanum Milkshake|1.9.08 @ 11:27AM|#

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

ADWEEEEIIIRRRRDDDOOOO|1.9.08 @ 11:29AM|#

FROTH FROTH FROTH. SPITTLE SPITTLE SPITTLE.

WHOMPA WHOMPA WHOMPA!

GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEYYYYAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!









*reaches for moist towelette

R C Dean|1.9.08 @ 11:31AM|#

But joe's point is that the Democratic Party takes positions consistently which minorities overwhelmingly agree are "not racist" and in fact "anti-racist."

No, joe's point was that the Democrats will not tolerate a racist in their midst ("drove the racists out"). Which is patently false.

And if current political positions absolve past racism, then why isn't Ron given a pass for his opposition to locking up entire generations of black men?

|1.9.08 @ 11:31AM|#

John,

Slavery couldn't have existed without big government. If the North had let the South go its own way, and then repealed the 1850 fugitive slave law, the South would have been bled dry of slaves within 20 years.

Jim Crow was also an example of govt intervention. Don't lay the sins of a different variety of big government at the feet of those who oppose the current variety.

Also, a libertarian govt would have been just as capable of winning WW1 and WW2 (or better yet, staying out of the former thereby preventing the latter). Libertarians don't shrink from all wars, just unnecessary ones.

|1.9.08 @ 11:33AM|#

I've been reading Ron's newsletter for years. At 54yrs young, I'm sorry, but I really never took offense at the material. Sure some of it was bad humor, certainly not politically correct, but then again I was called a racist by numerous posters here for opposing the McCain Kennedy Bush amnesty bill. I guess I come out of a different generation. I don't hate the Confederate flag, found it hilarious when Virginal Postrel got all hot and bothered when the folks of Mississippi voted to keep their flag in 2002. I think PCism is a problem in libertarian circles. MLK was a Plagiarist, a serial adulterer all while claiming to be a man of GOD. And as I watched LA burn during the Rodney King riots, too be honest, I was thinking lots worse things than animals.

When Ron ran for congress in 1996, his old newsletters came up then claiming Ron was anti-Semitic. It was the GOP establishment doing it because Ron was running against party switcher Greg Laughlin. The elder Bush came in to support Laughlin. So yes, this is old news.

What I find disingenuous are the Reasonites and Catoites now washing their hands. They were never for Ron Paul in the first place. Lifestyle libertarians at Reason didn't like Ron's devout Christianity and his opposition to abortion. Catoites are the Neocons of libertarians. Beltway types that know what side their bread is buttered.

Yes, this has hurt Ron. It was an obvious smear piece by NeoCons and for some at Reason to claim that Jamie Kirchick has no agenda is laughable.

Kirchick Warns of Neo-Nazi-Confederate--Homophobic Menace

|1.9.08 @ 11:33AM|#

R C,

(1) Your Kleagle was far more of an active racist than anything Ron Paul was alleged to have done. Not when he was associated with liberalism he wasn't. He was arguing for libertarian positions, like the right of lunch-counter owners to refuse to serve black people, when he was an active racist. Nice "Your Kleagle," btw. You must be really confident in your position to engage in namecalling.

(2) How touching that you take his apology at face value. It's been backed up by years of his record.

(3) Have you not read Ron Paul's denunciation and apology for what was published under his name? I have, and I take his apology seriously. Ron Paul seems to be much more genuinely opposed to racism than many libertarians and fellow-travellers.

On a scale of 1 to 10, being a Klan Kleagle has got to be an 8 or 9, while being grossly negligent about a scuzzy newsletter is, what, a 3?

Good thing nobody in the Democratic Party associates with Klan Kleagles, then. I don't give a flying crap that Robert Byrd is a convert rather than being born into the faith. Were he still a Klan member, or if he expressed or acted on sentiments comparable to those apparently written by highly-respected-libertarian Lew Rockwell, he'd be drummed out of the party.

You obviously have not spent any time around union members or leadership. I have, and I can assure you many of them are both (a) racists and (b) active Democratic operatives. And they keep their mouths shut in public, because they know that they will cease to have a Democratic affiliation if the party finds out.

|1.9.08 @ 11:34AM|#

MNG -
You can't have it both ways. It's true that there are (at least) 2 breeds of libertarians with the motives that you cite, but removing a gov't program can't both help and hurt the same person (I guess it COULD, but I mean a net effect).
For well meaning libertarians, libertarian policies do not support racism (or are anti-racist) in the same exact way that well meaning democratic policies do not support racism (or are anti-racist). Whether or not those statements are true depend on the actual effects of the policies, not the motivations behind them.

|1.9.08 @ 11:35AM|#

"I think it's more nuanced than that...Most of the core positions of libertarianism can fit nicely with racism."

I diagree. I think there is something profoundly racist about paternalism. It is one thing to say that everyone is equal under the law, it is quite another to try to ensure equal results for one favored group or another. The second option assumes that the favored group is inferior and incapable of competing on its own. The second wave of the civil rights movement that gave us welfare and affirmative action has done I think tremendous damage to both minority communities and race relations in this country. Further, it is absolutely consistent with libertarianism to say that everyone should be equal under the law and that no one should be denied the benefits of society based upon their race or sex. I see no reason why a principled libertarian should not have supported ending Jim Crow.

|1.9.08 @ 11:35AM|#

Christ on a crutch, joe...

I was referring to Rockwell.

|1.9.08 @ 11:35AM|#

Still not linking to Paul's formal response?

It's here, for those without ten seconds to spare to find it:

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

|1.9.08 @ 11:35AM|#

I'm angry at Ron Paul not for being a racist, which I don't think he is, but because he never really came clean about this. We all knew this would come out, and I'm sure he and his campaign did too. It should have been nipped in the bud, when all this came up (again) last summer.

Instead, it was ignored, and most of us ignored it thinking he addressed it 'enough' and old news. But now that we have to face it again, the same old excuses won't work. This will keep coming up and this will keep getting thrown back at us until Ron Paul or the writer (ahem-Lew-ahem) comes clean and explains how all this happened. Maybe they're all racist, maybe they just wanted attention. I don't really care what it was, I just want to know why it happened.

We gave so much to Ron Paul this past year, and I think he owes it to us to explain all of this. He needs to show that he respects us to take one for the team and explain what he did, why he did it and who exactly did it. To me, it's not a question of racism as much a question of respect for his supporters.

|1.9.08 @ 11:36AM|#

I've been reading Ron's newsletter for years. At 54yrs young, I'm sorry, but I really never took offense at the material. Sure some of it was bad humor, certainly not politically correct, but then again I was called a racist by numerous posters here for opposing the McCain Kennedy Bush amnesty bill. I guess I come out of a different generation. I don't hate the Confederate flag, found it hilarious when Virginal Postrel got all hot and bothered when the folks of Mississippi voted to keep their flag in 2002. I think PCism is a problem in libertarian circles. MLK was a Plagiarist, a serial adulterer all while claiming to be a man of GOD. And as I watched LA burn during the Rodney King riots, too be honest, I was thinking lots worse things than animals.

When Ron ran for congress in 1996, his old newsletters came up then claiming Ron was anti-Semitic. It was the GOP establishment doing it because Ron was running against party switcher Greg Laughlin. The elder Bush came in to support Laughlin. So yes, this is old news.

What I find disingenuous are the Reasonites and Catoites now washing their hands. They were never for Ron Paul in the first place. Lifestyle libertarians at Reason didn't like Ron's devout Christianity and his opposition to abortion. Catoites are the Neocons of libertarians. Beltway types that know what side their bread is buttered.

Yes, this has hurt Ron. It was an obvious smear piece and for some at Reason to claim that Jamie Kirchick has no agenda is laughable.

Kirchick Warns of Neo-Nazi-Confederate--Homophobic Menace

|1.9.08 @ 11:36AM|#

Ironically, this incident may HELP Ron Paul's numbers in South Carolina and the South in general.

Sorry -- too soon? ;)

Took a long look at the Ron Paul bumper sticker on my car this morning, and decided to keep it on there because all the other major party choices are statists. They all want a bigger federal government. The Democrats all want socialized medicine, among other bad things. The other Republicans all want the war in Iraq to go on, among other bad things. Ron Paul has not only talked about libertarian principles, he's consistently voted that way, year after year.

If someone can convince me of ANY of the following, I'll take off the Ron Paul bumper sticker on my car:

1) Ron Paul currently holds the views in these despicable newsletters.

2) Ron would try to have the federal government impose racist policies on us if he was elected.

3) One of the other major party candidates wants to shrink the federal government.

I've been married for well over a decade. Staying married is not as easy as the glossy brochures would have you believe. To stay married, you have to accept that your spouse is a flawed human beings -- and that you are too -- and try to forgive their mistakes if they sincerely repent.

|1.9.08 @ 11:37AM|#

I just want to echo a comment from way, way above in this post, that comparing this crap in any way to anything Mencken wrote is weak.

Russ 2000|1.9.08 @ 11:37AM|#

Also, libertarians if they were honest and knew any history should hate the antebellum South.

Yes, you you are the one who claimed that keeping the union together was a feather in big government's cap. Instead, it should be looked at shamefully as those scum shouldn't have been allowed in the union.

|1.9.08 @ 11:37AM|#

No, joe's point was that the Democrats will not tolerate a racist in their midst ("drove the racists out"). Which is patently false.

Really? Got a link? Can you show me the prominent Democrat who advocates racist positions and remains a prominent Democrat?

No, you can't.

|1.9.08 @ 11:37AM|#

RC
I'm not sure joe meant that they get pitchforks and chase the racists out. I imagine what he means is
1. anyone with explicit racist tendencies is not given positions or platforms in the party organization
2. the party consistently takes positions and organizational structures that would make an explicit racist feel unwelcome there

It's always a little silly to see a libertarian or conservative, when racism comes up, try to make an argument that it is the Democrats who are in fact racist (and not in a way that I might agree with you, like over affirmative action and other forms of, imo, obvious reverse discrimination, but actually racist against black or brown folks). The 90%+ black voters who turn out for the Dems are not all crazy or hoodwinked, they know in fact that the Dem party stands for things good for them.

Conservatives and libertarians should just say "hey, race is something we were on the wrong side of for a while. It wasn't always that way, and it wasn't true for all of us, but our movement has gotten this issue wrong in a big way at times." I mean, liberals have to admit they got communism wrong, imo.

Sam Grove|1.9.08 @ 11:37AM|#

I think some people overestimate the caché of the 'libertarian' label. The MSM attached it to Ron Paul as proof of his kookiness.

Face it, in the mainstream, libertarians are flakes.

|1.9.08 @ 11:39AM|#

He was arguing for libertarian positions, like the right of lunch-counter owners to refuse to serve black people, when he was an active racist.

He went way beyond libertarian positions, joe. That's like saying the People's Republic of China supports Democratic positions like abortion being legal, when in fact they go far beyond that and compel abortions (which as far as I know Dems still oppose).

|1.9.08 @ 11:39AM|#

"And if current political positions absolve past racism, then why isn't Ron given a pass for his opposition to locking up entire generations of black men?"

Uhh, it could have something to do with his current position that the Civil Rights Act and the Union fighting the Civil War to end slavery were bad things...

|1.9.08 @ 11:39AM|#

Yes, you you are the one who claimed that keeping the union together was a feather in big government's cap. Instead, it should be looked at shamefully as those scum shouldn't have been allowed in the union.

Russ2000 has an excellent point about who we associate with and for what reasons. Why try to keep millions of racists around? Just so we can gain power and money from them?

VM|1.9.08 @ 11:40AM|#

Resorting to the, "well the democrats have racists, so this isn't a big deal" sure doesn't help to advance the RP cause....

what about this?

|1.9.08 @ 11:40AM|#

"Also, a libertarian govt would have been just as capable of winning WW1 and WW2"

I don't want to highjack the thread but there is no way that the federal government could have never have mobilized for WWII the way it did without the draft and massive taxation and federal control of resources. It just couldn't have happened.

|1.9.08 @ 11:41AM|#

By the way, after the BCS championship game debacle Monday and the Paul debacle yesterday, I've renounced both sports and politics. If anyone needs me I'll be in my compound with my guns and my bourbon.

Sam Grove|1.9.08 @ 11:42AM|#

Also, libertarians if they were honest and knew any history should hate the antebellum South.

But also the antebellum north as well. In fact we should just hate the America of that time, as the government supported slavery with protective legislation. And we shuld hate the constitution of that time for making negroes 3/5 human.

Those who want to understand history should make sure they get a COMPLETE accounting of it.

|1.9.08 @ 11:42AM|#

The 90%+ black voters who turn out for the Dems are not all crazy or hoodwinked, they know in fact that the Dem party stands for things good for them.

Like public school monopolies, minimum wage laws, rampant eminent domain in inner city neighborhoods, drug wars, etc.

It's not just blacks who are hoodwinked; we pro-lifers have been used and abused by the Rs for just as long with nothing to show for it...

|1.9.08 @ 11:42AM|#

And if current political positions absolve past racism, then why isn't Ron given a pass for his opposition to locking up entire generations of black men?

Speaking only for myself, it is precisely Paul's denunciations of racism and attacks on racist policies that lead me to believe he does not share the sentiments in those columns, at least not any more, and that this was merely a management failure on his part.

|1.9.08 @ 11:43AM|#

"The second wave of the civil rights movement that gave us welfare and affirmative action has done I think tremendous damage to both minority communities and race relations in this country. Further, it is absolutely consistent with libertarianism to say that everyone should be equal under the law and that no one should be denied the benefits of society based upon their race or sex. I see no reason why a principled libertarian should not have supported ending Jim Crow."

John, I agree with a lot of what you say here (I disagree about the use of the general term "welfare" being bad for minorities and race relations, some of it was and is, but some of it was really necessary [think Mississippi sharecroppers in 1955]). But you have GOT to know that many, many libertarians, probably a majority, are not down with the Civil Rights Act for instance. Many of them worked with Goldwater to denounce it as an intrusion on the liberty of the businessman to employ and serve who he wanted to. They answer that the Magical Market would have solved that (and acne and bad breath and meteor showers btw).

|1.9.08 @ 11:43AM|#

But also the antebellum north as well.

And, indeed the during-bellum North, which included four slave states -- a fact universally forgotten by those who paint the Civil War as free North v. slave South.

|1.9.08 @ 11:45AM|#

You read those newsletters, and you either grasp what the writer was saying, or you work really hard not to.

WTF, joe? Dude, I get what he's saying (though I haven't read the whole thing yet... it looks like it'll be the weekend before I get the time to slog through all of the quoted articles), and I absolutely do not agree with the author (whoever that was) at all.

HOWEVER, it's clear that TNR is making misleading edits to make certain statements look worse than they are. Sure, the stuff is bad. But TNR is trying to inflate it, and use the actual bad stuff to taint the not actual bad stuff, all in an attempt to make it seem like there was endemic racism in a newsletter associated with Paul. Now, I can't say there wasn't, at least until the weekend. But I CAN and DO say that TNR's plain dishonesty makes me suspect I won't find nearly as much objectionable content as people are claiming there is.

|1.9.08 @ 11:45AM|#

But also the antebellum north as well.

libertarians - it turns out - hate everything. That's why we have so much trouble organizing. We even hate each other.

|1.9.08 @ 11:46AM|#

RC
I'm not sure joe meant that they get pitchforks and chase the racists out. I imagine what he means is
1. anyone with explicit racist tendencies is not given positions or platforms in the party organization As opposed to being allowed to write newsletters in the name of its prominent leaders.

2. the party consistently takes positions and organizational structures that would make an explicit racist feel unwelcome there As opposed to the obvious comfort the author of those pieces felt.

I mean, liberals have to admit they got communism wrong, imo. Heck, Democrats had to admit a couple decades ago that they used to be on the wrong side of racism, like that expressed in these newsletters.

|1.9.08 @ 11:47AM|#

He went way beyond libertarian positions, joe. Of course he did, crimethink. I didn't mean to suggest that the entirety of his platform was libertarian, just refuting the notion that it was liberal.

|1.9.08 @ 11:47AM|#

"No, joe's point was that the Democrats will not tolerate a racist in their midst ("drove the racists out"). Which is patently false."

How many liberal editorial cartoons have portrayed Condi Rice with big lips and in racist charactature? Too many to count. How many times have liberal white commentators called Clearance Thomas an "Uncle Tom", about the worst insult you can throw at someone in the black community? I also remember numerous sneers about Thomas and his "white wife" during the confirmation hearings. And how about Ted Roll referring to Condi Rice as a "House N*****" to the WhiteHouse?

Brett|1.9.08 @ 11:47AM|#

Steve S. - is there a secret knock? I might want to join. I'll bring some disgruntled Strippers for RP.

|1.9.08 @ 11:48AM|#

Really? Got a link? Can you show me the prominent Democrat who advocates racist positions and remains a prominent Democrat?

No, you can't.

Well, for starters, joe, I imagine all the Democratic frontrunners support the continued existence of the racial quotas pushed by the EEOC. But I'm pretty sure you consider that a feature, not a bug.

Oh, wait, you meant Democrats who publicly support racism against non-whites. Ummm, then no.

kinnath|1.9.08 @ 11:50AM|#

. . . and that this was merely a management failure on his part.

Perhaps he can head of to a some spa for rehab and wipe the slate clean. And maybe earn some sympathy points as well ;-)

|1.9.08 @ 11:50AM|#

Wouldn't this whole thing just be easier if we started a new party, with a clearly defined set of values in its charter?
Labels suck balls. By starting out new, we could address these concerns in a single document well before it ever became an issue.

Now's the time for everyone to say "Ok, sure Reinmoose. You get right on that."

|1.9.08 @ 11:51AM|#

Yes, Jake Boone. F*ck the New Republic.

|1.9.08 @ 11:52AM|#

Brett, you're welcome. But it's BYOA (bring your own ammo.)
The password is "Frederick Douglass."

Sam Grove|1.9.08 @ 11:53AM|#

I don't want to highjack the thread but there is no way that the federal government could have never have mobilized for WWII the way it did without the draft and massive taxation and federal control of resources. It just couldn't have happened.

I'll assume that you are counting that as a positive.

The U.S. government lied the country into involvement in WWI, which is acknowledged by historians, including Winston Churchill, as the factor that perpetuated that war, broke the stalemate, enabled the victorious allies to impose the infamous Treaty of Versailles, which brought about the debasement of the German economy, and enabled the rise of the NAZIS movement, bringing Hitler into power.

Absent U.S. involvement in WWI, WWII probably would not have occurred. And, even if we leave out the earlier intervention, it is likely if the U.S. had stayed out of WWII, Germany and the USSR would have depleted each other to exhaustion. Instead, U.S. involvement enabled the continued rise of our next enemy, our ex-allies.

|1.9.08 @ 11:53AM|#

Yes, prolefeed, Democrats are more enthusiastic about desegregation and racial equality that libertarians and Republicans. We can have a good, long discussion about how best to achieve those goals.

But, you see, this is a thread about racism, not the best way to fight it. Those newsletters, and the people who defend them, were not arguing for a better way to bring about a desegregated, racially-just society.

|1.9.08 @ 11:53AM|#

"By the way, after the BCS championship game debacle Monday and the Paul debacle yesterday, I've renounced both sports and politics."

F*cking right, those refs were relentless on Ohio State imo. And Fox's coverage of ALL the BCS games were terrible, the constant and same shots of the bands, the insane refusal to show replays of penalties, the insane play-by-play analysis ("and it's a touchdown! Oh, now they are waving it off"). Jesus if this is what Murdoch's control gets ya then the WSJ will be stinking like the NYP soon...

kinnath|1.9.08 @ 11:53AM|#

Wouldn't this whole thing just be easier if we started a new party, with a clearly defined set of values in its charter?

You mean beyond the delcaration of independence and the US constitution?

Rhywun|1.9.08 @ 11:54AM|#

Roach,

I guess it's comforting that you allow individuals to prove their worth to you after you've already assumed the worst about them.

William R,

You can brush it off as "bad humor" but the fact that it appears in a political newsletter under a Congressman's name means to most of us that such talk is meant to be taken seriously.

|1.9.08 @ 11:55AM|#

I don't know whether to be happy Mitt Romney, the fakest human being since the Terminator, has lost the first two races or depressed that he currently leads the GOP delegate count...

|1.9.08 @ 11:57AM|#

He one the second of three races, MNG.

|1.9.08 @ 11:57AM|#

Do you think dogs could discern that Mitt Romney is, in fact, not a human being just like in the movie? Is this why he tried to do his in?

Sam Grove|1.9.08 @ 11:58AM|#

Reinmoose,

We need a sarcasm emoticon. I don't hate anyone, not even George Bush. I'm not partisan enough.

|1.9.08 @ 11:58AM|#

Absent U.S. involvement in WWI, WWII probably would not have occurred.

Absent u.s. involvement in WWI a lot other conflicts wouldn't have happened, i think we're still fighting Wilson's War today. that interventionism for ya, it never ends as you're always fighting the last war, trying to clean up the messes you made. i take solace in the idea that there's a special place in hell for him.

|1.9.08 @ 11:58AM|#

So Mr. N.G., you're saying that Fox's not showing replays of penalties in the BCS game was a policy decision?
I'd assumed it was incompetence.

|1.9.08 @ 11:59AM|#

Really? Got a link? Can you show me the prominent Democrat who advocates racist positions and remains a prominent Democrat?

No, you can't.

Oh, joe, and all the major Democratic candidates support the continuing WoD, which is a de facto racist government program that hurts minorities disproportionately. And they all are for stripping people of their Second Amendment rights, which leaves minorities defenseless against criminals. And then there's the minimum wage, which they recently raised and are proud of, which results in high unemployment rates among minority teenagers. And then ...

Oh, wait, you meant openly advocating hurting minorities, rather than pushing for policies that in fact harm minorities even if the stated intent is allegedly good.

In that case, no. No prominant Democrat openly advocates harming minorities, rather than actually harming minorities with misguided policies.

|1.9.08 @ 12:00PM|#

Steve
No, I thought it was incompetence, just like those endless shots of the bands. Cameras can move guys!

But I think the NYP is incompetent as well as stupidly partisan.

|1.9.08 @ 12:00PM|#

Damn you, Mr. N.G.! I see what you're doing.
You're just trying to suck me back in!

Sam Grove|1.9.08 @ 12:01PM|#

Isn't it racist to hold that blacks cannot be conservative?

Isn't it racist to assume blacks must always be pets for the Democrat party.

Isn't it racist to categorize people by race and assume they all have the same political characteristic?

Edward|1.9.08 @ 12:01PM|#

If Ron Paul has really changed his spots, why didn't he immediately denounce the Nazi and White supremicist support he currently receives?

|1.9.08 @ 12:02PM|#

Have we lowered the bar for what is "racist" and what may be termed "racially insensitive"?

To me, racist is the stuff of Hitler and the KKK. Racially insensitive is what you might say when you are talking amongst old buddies who won't misinterpret what you're trying to say.

I've not read all of the newsletter comments, but to me, what I have read seems to fall more in the racially insensitive category.

I am a Reason/CATO guy myself, but I frequently read LewRockwell.com. Lew and many others write some good stuff. Some of the outside contributors are ones who make me wince from time to time.

The southern paleo crowd that Lew and Rothbard were trying to appeal to at first seems like an odd one -- especially if you are not familiar with the South. There once was a more individualist and non-interventionist streak in southern culture that I imagine got wiped out by reconstruction, public schools, and the economic boost from military bases.

I think it is that old trait that they have been trying to tap in to. Along with it comes some xenophobia and perhaps some racial baggage.

You'll notice on LRC that Lew plays the straight man -- giving lessons in free market economics -- while other contributors dance around old paleo themes.

I seriously doubt that Lew is a racist or a bigot. But I have wondered if Rothbard's and Lew's strategy has been to grab the attention of the directionless paleos and give them little doses of economics in hopes that eventually the unsavory baggage will turn from suitcases to handbags.

Not sure if that is a good strategy or not. Seems to have a lot of risk. But I do know from others I've run in to here in the South that it has made a good number of people read free market economics who otherwise would have remained firmly in the worldview of Pat Buchanan.

My guess is that the Ron Paul newsletter was being used for the same reasons. That's the danger involved in building bridges -- it allows the other guys to come over to your side as well.

|1.9.08 @ 12:03PM|#

So, in other words, prolefeed knows he can't demonstrate even the slightest degree of racist ideology among Democrats, so he changes the subject to the libertarian equivalent of "Missile Hits New York City: Women and Minorities Hit Hardest."

Yes, those programs suck. Yes, I wish the Democrats would grow a spine. No, they do not demonstrate a willingness to tolerate racism.

Stop jacking the thread.

|1.9.08 @ 12:03PM|#

Really? Got a link? Can you show me the prominent Democrat who advocates racist positions and remains a prominent Democrat?

No, you can't.

But I can.
Al Sharpton shared a stage at Democratic presidential primary debates quite recently. Are you going to deny that Al Sharpton is a racist?

|1.9.08 @ 12:03PM|#

"In that case, no. No prominant Democrat openly advocates harming minorities, rather than actually harming minorities with misguided policies."

C'mon prolfeed, you have to see that this, even IF true, is still a distinction that is pretty important...

Racist A says "I want to screw black people by getting rid of big government" and big government in fact actually hurts black people.

Non-racist B says "I want to help black people by continuing government program x" and the program in fact hurts black people.

B is wrong. A is a racist dick (and wrong, but in a benefical way).

|1.9.08 @ 12:05PM|#

I seriously doubt that Lew is a racist or a bigot. But I have wondered if Rothbard's and Lew's strategy has been to grab the attention of the directionless paleos and give them little doses of economics in hopes that eventually the unsavory baggage will turn from suitcases to handbags.

Adding a spoonful of ice cream to a pile shit doesn't much change that pile of shit, but you can bet that adding a spoonful of shit to your pile of ice cream is gonna make an impression.

|1.9.08 @ 12:07PM|#

joe,

So, allowing someone to write hideous racist garbage under your name a few times during a period of four years is worse than aiding, abetting, and promoting a policy that has imprisoned a significant fraction of the A-A population?

And don't tell me it's just a lack of spine on their part -- they friggin promote that shit.

|1.9.08 @ 12:07PM|#

Shane, I wish I'd coined that.

|1.9.08 @ 12:08PM|#

I just pray you're wrong about the fate of my favorite newspaper, the WSJ, Mr. N.G.
I'd hate to have to renounce newsprint, too. (Although I gave up on the paper I work for long ago.)

|1.9.08 @ 12:09PM|#

Shane, I wish I'd coined that.

yeah me too, heard it on a sports radio show the other week and have been waiting to use it. :-)

R C Dean|1.9.08 @ 12:10PM|#

No prominant Democrat openly advocates harming minorities

If that's the standard, then everyone gets a pass, Dems and Reps (and Ron Paul). I guess we can wrap this one up, then.

I have never seen more double standards and moving targets in one short morning than I have today.

Sam Grove|1.9.08 @ 12:11PM|#

Yes, prolefeed, Democrats are more enthusiastic about desegregation and racial equality

At least publicly. But liberals have been described as having another form of racism. Including the assumption that blacks need Dem party 'beneficence' before they can advance.

Democrats are like Republicans, they know their constituency and they know how to get their votes. It's pure political calculus, exempting the occasional sincere politician.

|1.9.08 @ 12:11PM|#

"The Democrats drove the racists out of our party"

Are you kidding? The racists in California dreamed up a very clever scheme to segregate the mexican kids and pretend that it was for their own good.

There are plenty of racists in the Democratic party; they just don't admit to themselves that their patronizing attitude towards blacks and hispanics is racist.

-jcr

Rhywun|1.9.08 @ 12:13PM|#

Have we lowered the bar for what is "racist" and what may be termed "racially insensitive"?

No. "Racism" has always meant pre-judging the character of an individual based on his tribe. Hitler and the KKK of course practiced racism too, and carried it further to "genocide". That doesn't mean the more "subtle" contents of these newsletters isn't racism.

Plus, there's a difference between serious "I mean it" racism and "joking" racism that defenders of this stuff seem to be willfully ignoring.

|1.9.08 @ 12:14PM|#

But, you see, this is a thread about racism, not the best way to fight it. Those newsletters, and the people who defend them, were not arguing for a better way to bring about a desegregated, racially-just society.

Yes, joe, this thread started about the Ron Paul newsletters. But, when you inadvertently threadjacked it a bit and make the ridiculous claim that no Democrat "advocates racist positions", you laid yourself open to rebuttal of that statement.

If you're willing to retract your earlier statement and rephrase it more carefully -- say, "None of the frontrunning Democratic politicians claims they hate minorities, and in fact publicly say they are against racism", then OK. But if you persist in indefensibly broad wording that implies their policy positions don't have racist results, then I feel it's fair for me to point how how that statement doesn't comport with reality.

You may call it nitpicking, but you have a history of making overly broad statements about the incredible goodness of Democrats, so this isn't an isolated incident.

Derek|1.9.08 @ 12:16PM|#

"If Ron Paul has really changed his spots, why didn't he immediately denounce the Nazi and White supremicist support he currently receives?"

He did denounce them and their views, and explained he held views essentially opposite to theirs.

|1.9.08 @ 12:17PM|#

Adding a spoonful of ice cream to a pile shit doesn't much change that pile of shit, but you can bet that adding a spoonful of shit to your pile of ice cream is gonna make an impression.

You may be right, Shane. But if we are extreme in our demands for purity then we end up like the guys at the Ayn Rand Institute.

I'm not saying that the LRC strategy is a good one, but the question might be, how do you build bridges without getting poop in your ice cream?

Heck, I don't think that you can avoid it. When you consider the themes that Ron Paul has been preaching during this campaign, I still can't figure out what common ground the 9/11 Truthers find.

A lot is made of the Confederate sympathizers at LRC. But note that the emphasis is more on what a rotten tyrant Lincoln was rather than how wonderful the Confederacy was. A quick read of the Confederate constitution leaves little for a libertarian to get excited about -- especially that little thing in there about slavery. But it can't be all a bad thing if some of the Sons of Confederate Veterans start reading a little Hayek or Mises.

|1.9.08 @ 12:20PM|#

Hey, joe, at their last national convention, the Democrats gave one of their limited speaking slots to a guy who participated in events which preceded a homicidal firebombing, events (which occurred in the mid 90s) at which the guy used phrases like "We will drive the white interloper out", and stood silently while a speaker next to him implored the mob to "make this cracker suffer".

Paul's behavior is, at best, intolerably incompetent for someone with political ambition, and I see no reason to tolerate the intolerable. But please don't try to sell the bullshit that the Democrats don't tolerate virulent racism when it serves them politically. That is a flat-out lie.

|1.9.08 @ 12:22PM|#

Yeah, I don't want to hear about Democrats being all racially inclusive. With school districting, zoning laws, and property taxes, wealthy Democratic voters have accomplished for themselves what George Wallace only dreamed of.

|1.9.08 @ 12:26PM|#

This whole thread is fucking depressing. A handful of non-libertarians and Democratic partisans engaging in trollish behavior. A bunch of other people who are obviously way too sensitive to go through life.

Ron Paul is the same person today as he was yesterday. And anyone who takes these moldy old ghostwritten newsletters as evidence of anything about his character is simply a moron or a political shill. Almost alone among the candidates, RP is painfully frank and open about his beliefs, his human flaws. But in the end, he advocates staying the fuck out of your business and mine. How much less racist or discriminatory could you get?

It's too bad even many libertarians seem to have succumbed to the worst kind of political correctness. What a nation of emotionalist saps we are becoming. When some statist prick gets elected this November, we will *deserve what we get*. And that includes supposed libertarians whining in this thread.

|1.9.08 @ 12:27PM|#

But it can't be all a bad thing if some of the Sons of Confederate Veterans start reading a little Hayek or Mises.

In principal sure, in practice most people are not going to see Hayek or Mises as enough ice cream to overcome the SCV shit. Same reason why Paul can point to his voting record all he wants, but if he doesn't distance himself hard, quick, and substantially from the people who would endorse the words of that newsletter, then the electorate are going to smell something funny about his sundae. and they're not going to bite.

|1.9.08 @ 12:27PM|#

C'mon prolfeed, you have to see that this, even IF true, is still a distinction that is pretty important...

MNG -- agreed. Openly advocating racism is very bad. I condemn it. I won't vote for politicians who unrepentantly advocate open racism. I also won't vote for politicians who openly advocate policies that have racist effects, regardless of their intentions.

The intent of my posts were to get joe to back off on overly broad wording that implied that Democrats didn't harm minorities, because in my opinion certain of those polices do harm minorities, no matter how benevolent the intention of the bill's authors.

If joe's willing to quit arguing the point, and quietly let his misstatement go into the memory hold (I don't think anyone expects joe to ever admit he was wrong in the least, even inadvertently), we can end the threadjack and go back to the original topic of Ron Paul's newsletters.

|1.9.08 @ 12:28PM|#

"Absent u.s. involvement in WWI a lot other conflicts wouldn't have happened, i think we're still fighting Wilson's War today. that interventionism for ya, it never ends as you're always fighting the last war, trying to clean up the messes you made. i take solace in the idea that there's a special place in hell for him."

Absent WWI, a lot of conflicts would not have occured. It was the West attempting and time will tell perhaps committing suicide. As far as the US involvement goes, unrestricted Submarine warfare was a direct attack on US sovereignty and a violation of international law as it then stood. The Germans had sunk numerous US ships and killed 1000s of Americans. Further, they were offering Mexico a deal to reconquer the Southwest if we joined the war. That sounds crazy now but we had basically been in a small scale war against Poncho Via and Mexico in 1916. It would have been a lot to expect Wilson to turn the other cheek and ignore all of that. Further, people always assume that Imperial Germany was somehow a moral equal with the US and Britian. They were not. They had started the war. The Kaiser hated the United States and Democracy and freedom. Yes, Imperial Germany was not Nazi Germany but it was far from benign. We know now that demise of Imperial Germany lead to Nazi Germany, but Wilson and his contemperaries had no way of knowing that. Also, Wilson tried desparately to get a fair peace. It wasn't his fault Versailles was so one sided. You have to judge Wilson by what he knew at the time. Considering the circumstances at the time Wilson had every right and duty to enter the war after Germany attacked American shipping, killed American civilians, violated international law and tried to seduce our closest neighbor into an alliance against us. If you want to blame anyone for WWI and its aftermath, blame Imperial Germany for starting the war in the first place and then dragging the US into it through unrestricted submarine warfare and the ludacris Zimmerman note instead of Wilson.

|1.9.08 @ 12:29PM|#

Ah, Bourbon. Sweet, sweet Bourbon. It never disappoints...

B|1.9.08 @ 12:30PM|#

"It flirted with racism, like Mencken's did,"

If by flirted you mean it got in bed with and had intercourse with.

|1.9.08 @ 12:31PM|#

Hey, B. I assume you'll be here all week?

|1.9.08 @ 12:33PM|#

I have here in my hand a list....

|1.9.08 @ 12:34PM|#

Just a question. Timothy Virkkala says that libertarians of the time were not only familiar with the newsletters, but that people in the movement knew who the actual authors (who he opts not to name) probably were.

So, is everyone at Reason who've pimped Ron Paul up to this point just too young to have ever heard about this, or is it that they've been unfamiliar with the newsletters for other reasons? Or were folks hoping nobody actually produced the newsletters?

|1.9.08 @ 12:35PM|#

"It flirted with racism, like Mencken's did,"


How do you "flirt with racism"? What a crock. You either are racist or your are not. It is not hard to tell. Imagine if Reason applied this standard to some of its sacred cows;

"The Bush Doctrine flirts with interventionism"

"MADD firts with prohibitionism"

"Intelligent design flirts with the idea of creationsim"

What a crock of shit.

|1.9.08 @ 12:42PM|#

ChrisO, anyone who doesn't take this matter, at best, as evidence of utter and complete incompetency, in someone who has large political ambition, is a moron. The ideals of limited government are not going to be advanced very far by someone who engages in such a clusterfuck. If your ideas are already in the mainstream, fine, being a fuck-up can be gotten away with. When you are trying to sell ideas which are not widely accepted, then you have to be focused, extraordinarily disciplined, and capable of nearly flawless execution. This falls so short of that mark that it is laughable.

|1.9.08 @ 12:45PM|#

E the 1/2b, I've been reading libertarian tracts since the Ed Clark campaign and I had never heard of the Ron Paul letter. I assume it had a fairly small circulation, maybe among the survivalist/gold bug/we miss Robert E. Lee crowd?
Real "insiders" (and I'm not even sure what that means in Libertarian circles) might have known, but there's a lot of paper churned out out there.

|1.9.08 @ 12:54PM|#

And another thing, you Southern sympathizers. Need I remind you we northerners handed your boys their asses?
The Confederacy were LOOZERS! Get over it, already.
My home boy U.S. Grant rulz!

|1.9.08 @ 12:57PM|#

Steve, are you a journalist for a libertarian magazine?

Brett|1.9.08 @ 12:57PM|#

My home boy U.S. Grant rulz!

As a general, perhaps. As a president, eh, not so much.

Roach|1.9.08 @ 12:57PM|#

It's not racist to assume black voters will likely do what they've always done, which is support the Democratic Party. It's not racist, but it's extremely stupid, to live in a fantasy world where you are so afraid to make sensible generalizations that you deny reality that is easily confirmed with minimal statistical research, i.e., blacks are about 7-10X more criminal and more violent than whites.

These are real problems. The legacy of racism has something to do with it. But it also has a lot to do with the counterculture of the Sixties and the obsessive concern with racism that makes us feel bad about doing what needs to be done: locking up violent criminals of all races without apology.

|1.9.08 @ 12:58PM|#

Ms. Postrel gives a name:

http://www.dynamist.com/weblog/archives/002695.html

|1.9.08 @ 12:59PM|#

No, EtheB, I work for the MSM. I've got expensive habits to support.

|1.9.08 @ 1:00PM|#

"My home boy U.S. Grant rulz!"

Damn straight and he gets no credit for it. Instead, military history geeks all love Napoleon, Lee and Rommel. When it comes to generals history really does love a loser.

|1.9.08 @ 1:01PM|#

I find the whole "uproar" over these newsletters a bit absurd. Ron has been friends and associates with people like Alex Jones (conspiracy theorist) and Lew Rockwell (used to flirt with racism- though not so much now) for decades. Ron doesn't share all their views, but what they all have in common is an extreme distrust of government and a love of liberty. I'd rather rub shoulders with a libertarian that thinks black people smell funny than a neocon calling for bombing Iran. Please, let's put things in perspective here. Ron is friends with people who might have wrote some questionable stuff he doesn't even believe. John McCain wants to kill people.

|1.9.08 @ 1:02PM|#

Then, Steve, I think you can be forgiven for being shocked, shocked by this. (Particularly for being in the MSM. ;) )

The writers here rushing to throw him under the bus, I question rather more.

|1.9.08 @ 1:02PM|#

And another thing, you Southern sympathizers...

I don't know about sympathizing with the South, but i do sympathize with the idea of individual or groups of States leaving a union of states the same way they joined, voluntarily and of their own accord with no interference. Slavery was/is wrong, the South was/is a corrupt and racist place, the right of seccesion was/is justifiable. that said, who cars right, that was 150 years ago i know, but the point needs to be made that the war was fought over State Rights not slavery. slavery was just the political tool, by Lincoln's own admission. just a matter of historical accuracy. An i'm a born and bred Ohioan if that matters.

|1.9.08 @ 1:03PM|#

"John McCain wants to kill people."

In McCain's defense, there is certainly no shortage of people in this world who need killing.

|1.9.08 @ 1:06PM|#

In McCain's defense, he left a good portion of his marbles in southeast asia and shouldn't be held liable for 1/2 the shit he says.

Jesse Walker|1.9.08 @ 1:07PM|#

Eric and Steve: Virkkala worked for Liberty editor Bill Bradford, who (a) also published an investment newsletter, and thus got a bunch of other newsletters in exchange, and (b) was on friendly terms with the paleos for a while, though they had a falling out around 1990. So he was in a position to see this stuff and to hear gossip about who was behind it. People in other corners of the movement were not so well-placed.

I came to Liberty a little later (interned in '92, was on staff from '93-'96). I never saw any of the Ron Paul letters. I was aware that some of the paleos were writing stuff along those lines, but didn't know that Paul's newsletter contained the same sort of material. I was surprised to learn that it did; despite the articles that surfaced in 1996, I assumed until this week that any additional embarrassing statements to come to light would consist of conspiracy-mongering, not bigotry.

|1.9.08 @ 1:09PM|#

Shane,

Had the South been allowed to go their own way, one of two things would have happened; either slavery would have gone on into the 20th Century turning the CSA into a pariah state ala South Africa or a slave revolt would have succeeded turning the CSA into Hati. Either way it would have been a mess on the Union's southern border that makes Mexico look like Switzerland. Yeah, maybe in theory succession was legal, of course the Constitution explicitly gives the President the power to fight "rebellion" and Bill of Rights gaurentees a Democratic form of government in all of the states (something clearly not possible with slavery), so I that is at least a debatable point. Regardless even if succession was legal, thank God, Lincoln didn't see it that way and saved the South from its own maddness.

|1.9.08 @ 1:17PM|#

Joe:
Really? Got a link? Can you show me the prominent Democrat who advocates racist positions and remains a prominent Democrat?

Al Sharpton.

|1.9.08 @ 1:19PM|#

ChrisO, anyone who doesn't take this matter, at best, as evidence of utter and complete incompetency, in someone who has large political ambition, is a moron. The ideals of limited government are not going to be advanced very far by someone who engages in such a clusterfuck.

You're probably right about that. Of course, I believe that it will take a national catastrophe or complete national "mental makeover" for the ideals of limited government to take hold. We, as a nation, are slowly sinking into a morass of dependency and passivity. In the current conditions, I'm not sure that there is any type of messenger who could change that.

Regardless, I don't see Newslettergate as being the big deal that you think it is.

|1.9.08 @ 1:22PM|#

John-

Of course we'll never know if it would have turned into South africa or haiti or something else entirely becuse it was given the chance, so saying it might have turned into this hell or that is meaningless, Lincoln wasn't concerned about what it could become only what it was. As far as slavery into the 20th i have to agree with a previous poster that the Laws in the North could have easily have been change to drain the south of it's slave labor, also again slavery wasn't the issue at hand, eventually it would have disappeared as industrialization took hold just like it did in all the other countires involved in the slave trade. Social evolution trumps forced Government change everytime. Rebellion and Seccesion are given different words because they mean different things. Not a rebellion. the Bill of rights had nothing to do with anything before seccesion attempt(when slavery was legal in nothern states as well) or after a successful seccesion attempt(new nation, new constitution). Lincoln might have saved the south "from itself"(whatever that's supposed to mean) but he killed the republic in the process.

|1.9.08 @ 1:22PM|#

Thanks, Jesse, for the nice summation.

|1.9.08 @ 1:25PM|#

I didn't jack the threat, troll-feed. It was defenders of Paul and newsletters who decided that "No, YOU did!" would be a lot more fun that discussing the relationship between the libertarian movement and the racist right.

But if you persist in indefensibly broad wording that implies their policy positions don't have racist results,

I have never made this statement. I have been talking about ideology. It was you who decided to change the subject to "results," a topic I have ventured no opinion on anywhere on this thread.

STOP. JACKING. THE. THREAD.

If you don't want to discuss the topic at hand, go away.

|1.9.08 @ 1:26PM|#

"If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." - Abraham Lincoln

It's debatable whether the union needed "saving" by force or at all. but again, ancient history, my point being you don't have to be a Confederate or Southern sympathizer to appreciate the travesty of the Civil War(which wasn't really a civil war since as far as i know the south didn't have intentions of takeing over the government of the Union, only withdrawal from it).

|1.9.08 @ 1:29PM|#

STOP. JACKING. THE. THREAD.

Stop. trying. to. impede. the. natural. flow. of. conversation.

There are at minimum 5 threads on this site about the damn newsletters, what more needs said?

|1.9.08 @ 1:32PM|#

At the time Al Sharpton was engaged in racist agitation, he was persona non grata within the Democratic Party. Despite repeated attempts, he couldn't win any seats or nominations.

In order to be tolerate, he had to completely change his rhetoric and actions. Was his change cynical and calculated? Probably. Nonethess, the fact that he realized that he had to at least make a show of dropping his race-baiting in order to be acceptable to the Democrats, while the author of these newsletters knew he did not in order to be accepted within the libertarian movement, tells us what we need to know about the standards each group has towards racism.

As it was, most Democrats were very uncomfortable with someone with that recent history being on the stage. But the man won delegates to the convention. Whaddya gonna do?

|1.9.08 @ 1:34PM|#

"As far as slavery into the 20th i have to agree with a previous poster that the Laws in the North could have easily have been change to drain the south of it's slave labor,"

No they couldn't of because of Dred Scott. Dred Scott ruled that if a Southern slave owner brought his slave to a nonslave state, that slave was still a slave. Dread Scott meant universal slavery. After Dred Scott there was nothing to prevent Southerners from buying businesses and farms in the North and using their slaves as labor, as long as they remained citizens of slave states. Further, if a slave is still a slave in a free state, then the owner has the right to come and get his escaped slave. So there is no way after Dred Scott that the North could have drained the South of slave labor.


"also again slavery wasn't the issue at hand, eventually it would have disappeared as industrialization took hold just like it did in all the other countires involved in the slave trade."

The price of slaves in New Orleans was higher in 1860 than it had ever been. Slavery was expanding not dying out. Eastern States such as Virginia and South Carolina who had used up their agricultural lands were by the 1850s in the business primarily of breeding and exporting slaves to the western states where the land was good. Further, Southerners were starting to use slaves in industrial labor. There is nothing that says you can't use a slave in a shoe factory or a steel mill just like you use paid workers. Slavery was outlawed in all of the industrialized nations before the 19th century so no one tried to adapt it to industrialization. But I see no reason why it couldn't have been and in fact that is exactly what the South was trying to do. The "slavery would have died on its own" is a myth. The number of slaves in the South increased throughout the first half of the 19th Century. If it was going to die on its own, it sure wasn't showing any signs of it. Lastly, we all hear about the underground railroad but that was a very small number of people. The vast majority of slaves lived deep inside what amounted to a police state and had little chance of ever excaping to the North. That would have only got worse as technology increased and gave slave owners more ways to control thier slaves.

"Lincoln might have saved the south "from itself"(whatever that's supposed to mean) but he killed the republic in the process"

What Republic? A Republic that enslaved a good portion of its people and considered them to be 1/3 of a person? God knows how long slavery would have continued in the South. It is easy for us, 140 years later rich and free to look back on Lincoln and condem him for killing our "republic". But what about the millions of people who would have been left in bondage had Lincoln not acted? Why should they have been left in bondage for our "republic". Further what about the people in both North and South who loved their country and wanted to see it continue rather than split into a free North and a elitist slave South? Again easy for us to demand our Republic. If saving the Republic means letting millions of people rot in slavery for God knows how many decades more, then it was not worth saving.

Sam Grove|1.9.08 @ 1:35PM|#

Further, people always assume that Imperial Germany was somehow a moral equal with the US and Britian. They were not.

Yeah, Britain already had their empire and Germany wanted to have one.

The whole point of constitutionally limited government is to prevent loose cannons like Wilson from making such strategic errors.
Yes, Wilson opposed the Treaty of Versailles, and yes, U.S. entry into the war broke the stalemate the threatened to bring the war to an end. The Kaiser had been stalemated in his plans to unite the Germanic countries and begin a German empire like that of the British, French, and Spanish colonial empires.

Let us not argue that any of them had occupied a moral high ground.

Also, while proclaiming neutrality, the U.S. also acted in favor of the Allies, um, the old colonial empires, throughout.

I'm a little confused by your sequence. You mean the unrestricted submarine warfare leading into WWII?

Remember the Lusitania! Carried munitions. German embassy warned in newspapers that it would be attacked.

Remember the Maine! Eventually proved to be a boiler room explosion.

Remember the Spanish-American war. U.S. marines killed several hundred thousand filipino guerrillas resisting U.S. occupation after Spain had been defeated.

Remember everything, leave no stone unturned.

There is no such thing as a 'good guy' government...except of course for 'our side'.

|1.9.08 @ 1:37PM|#

Chris, I paraphrased DeGaulle last night about this matter and I will do so again. This is worse than a crime. It is a blunder.

Yes, everybody makes mistakes. Sometimes you just are presented with a set of options, and you choose the wrong one. When that occurs because there was not sufficient information to know which option was best, well, them's the breaks. When it occurs despite the fact that anybody who could fog a mirror would know that it would be the wrong choice, that's just inexcusable, especially when one's goal is to make popular political beliefs which are not currently popular.

At best, Ron Paul chose, while having large political goals of making currently unpopular political beliefs popular, to have a newsletter sent out under his name without knowledge of the content. He's a monumental fuck-up. Period.

Roach|1.9.08 @ 1:37PM|#

Seriously, not every criticism of a minority group equals racism. Why don't you guys just defend him on the merits? After all, it's not like he or anyone said the state should engage in racism? They just wanted to take checks away from the famous "welfare queens?" Who could oppose that?

Haha. You guys forgot you were supposed to nominate a candidate not a magazine/set of talking points/idea. It's really quite funny.

I'm very conservative. Voted for Pat Buchanan twice. But I'm realistic, and I'm voting for Romney.

Sam Grove|1.9.08 @ 1:41PM|#

And Shane said "the laws changed", by which I assume he was implying that Dred Scott could have been overridden by legislation or constitutional amendment. I think John read over that bit.

|1.9.08 @ 1:44PM|#

"And Shane said "the laws changed", by which I assume he was implying that Dred Scott could have been overridden by legislation or constitutional amendment. "

Only by Consitutional Amendment, which wasn't going to happen as long as the South was in the Union. The bottomline is that if the civil war had never happened, slavery would not have ended for years or perhaps decades if at all. Basically you guys are agruing that the principles of states rights and succession are worth the continued enslavment of an entire race in order to preserve them. That is just nuts.

|1.9.08 @ 1:44PM|#

Seriously, not every criticism of a minority group equals racism.

welfare queens

Voted for Pat Buchanan twice.

Tells me all i need to know...

|1.9.08 @ 1:46PM|#

Only by Consitutional Amendment, which wasn't going to happen as long as the South was in the Union.

Bingo, so let them leave the union, and then pass the amendment.

Ali|1.9.08 @ 1:47PM|#

I have had mixed feelings about the "scandal". Here is what I came up with:

1. It is funny how the media is so selective as to its timing. Why didn't they attack him earlier on before people send millions to the campaign.

2. If TNR and those who hate Paul wouldn't do it earlier, why didn't reason magazine, for example, dig into this earlier. I consider this a journalistic failure on behalf of libertarian establishments, including Reason Magazine.

3. I still think I support Ron Paul's ideas because he clearly has a bird's eye view of the interrelation between war, economy, domestic issues, monetary policy, and personal liberties. He puts all this ideas all together in a single package that was consistent and given by a straight shooter.

4. Does this mean I support something he allowed to be written in his paper 10 years ago? Even if he still believes in these things (which I personally know he does not because I spoke to the man at least twice, as well as his family members [especially Rand and his wife Carol] and personally do not believe that he now does), should I accept that part of his ideology? Absolutely not! Many many great men in history were severely flawed on many things, but they were still great men of ideas and so is Paul.

|1.9.08 @ 1:47PM|#

Joe, i usually appreciate your comments on these threads, but i think you err with this:
"Nonethess, the fact that he realized that he had to at least make a show of dropping his race-baiting in order to be acceptable to the Democrats, while the author of these newsletters knew he did not in order to be accepted within the libertarian movement."
Doesn't the present discussion show how unacceptable such race-baiting is within at least some part of the movement?
I know it is within my part. But that's just me. (Literally.)

|1.9.08 @ 1:48PM|#

I meant WWI not WWII. What would you have expected Wilson to do? Germany was conducting unrestricted submarine warfar and sank more than just the Lusitania. Even if Wilson had never given any aid to the allies that would have still been a breach of international law, the destruction of private AMerican property and the death of American civilians. Is it your position that Wilson should have allowed Germany to kill American civilians on the high seas with impunity and done nothing? Germany forced the issue by conducting unrestricted submarine warfare.

|1.9.08 @ 1:50PM|#

"Bingo, so let them leave the union, and then pass the amendment."

And leave Southern blacks to rot in enslavement indefinitely? Like I said if having a Republic means continued slavery for an entire race I don't want it. Stop blaming Lincoln and blame the real culprits: Southern slave holders who created such an impossible position.

Roach|1.9.08 @ 1:53PM|#

Since when do libertarians like welfare queens? They're supposed to work or starve, remember? You guys sure lose your nerve when black people are at issue. It's really amusing.

|1.9.08 @ 1:53PM|#

God damn it, Joe, I fell for it.
First Mr. N.G. tries to suck me back into sports, now you're trying to suck me back into politics.
Get thee behind me, Satans.

|1.9.08 @ 1:57PM|#

You guys sure lose your nerve when black people are at issue. It's really amusing.

because "black people" are only an issue for paleocon bigots, not libertarians.

|1.9.08 @ 1:59PM|#

Joe, your timeline on Sharpton is inaccurate. Various Democratic candidates for office in New York sought to publicly meet with, and gain the endorsement of, Al Sharpton, way back in the 90s. That isn't the description of someone who is persona non grata.

Grand Chalupa|1.9.08 @ 2:02PM|#

You people need to realize that racists often have a lot in common with libertarians. I went from hip, Reason libertarian to a reactionary bigot and I didn't have to change my position on welfare, the absolute defense of property rights, affirmative action, etc.

I didn't think that someone should subsidize the breeding of others or the government should engage in discrimination. And the vast majority of those extorting money from others and benefiting from AA are blacks and Mexicans. High crime rates also lead to the expansion of government, and although I don't have the statistics off the top of my head about Mexicans, blacks make up 10% of the population and commit 50% of the crime.

Thinking you can have a libertarian society while not attacking the main obstacles towards it is the libertarian's attempt to be cool at the expense of being effective.

|1.9.08 @ 2:03PM|#

In order to be tolerate, he had to completely change his rhetoric and actions. Was his change cynical and calculated? Probably. Nonethess, the fact that he realized that he had to at least make a show of dropping his race-baiting in order to be acceptable to the Democrats,

joe, it appears that he's backsliding some.

"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation," said Sharpton.

reply to this