What They're Saying About RP, Newsletters, Libertarians, "Paleos," etc.

Matt Welch | January 11, 2008

Some commentary from Timothy Virkkala, David Boaz, John Derbyshire, Megan McArdle, David Gordon, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Athena Kerry, Doug Mataconis, Ilya Somin, Ann Althouse, Steven Horwitz, Glen Whitman, Ryan Sager, Jacob T. Levy, and a bunch more people listed here.

Comments

Episiarch|1.11.08 @ 4:45PM|#

Maybe there's some reverse psychology going on here: harp on the newsletters so fucking much that nobody wants to hear about them any more.

Unfortunately, I think people are just donning their sackcloth and ashes. What's next, a sambenito?

Bingo|1.11.08 @ 4:50PM|#

I've set it before, the message is good, the messenger is flawed but we've got a movement and its (somewhat) organized. Paul's not the man to win, but he's the man to get things started.

Bingo|1.11.08 @ 4:51PM|#

*set = said

|1.11.08 @ 4:53PM|#

Guess I'll stick with my principles and weep softly in a dark room come election day.

|1.11.08 @ 4:56PM|#

Some of this, all around!

Then beer, on me!

Tom Walls|1.11.08 @ 4:58PM|#

So why haven't you guys come up with a snazzy song reference yet for titling these Ron Paul blogs? Let me help you out:

Ghost Writer Motorcycle Hero
Stuck in the Middle with Lew

|1.11.08 @ 4:58PM|#

Folks, I don't know about you, but I just can't get enough about Ron Paul and these racist newsletters. I don't think Reason spends enough time soul searching and picking apart every last detail of this issue they can. I was expecting more than the barebones coverage we've been getting from Reason. I'm sorely disappointed.

|1.11.08 @ 4:59PM|#

The bottomless cesspool of yuppie angst.

Derrick|1.11.08 @ 5:03PM|#

I wonder what the blacks think. Has someone asked the blacks?

|1.11.08 @ 5:08PM|#

Add Brink Lindsey. Yeah, what he said.

http://www.brinklindsey.com/?p=139

|1.11.08 @ 5:10PM|#

I wonder what the blacks think. Has someone asked the blacks?

Silly Derrick! Blacks are for wringing your hands over - not talking to!

SIV|1.11.08 @ 5:12PM|#

I don't care what Ann Althouse has to say about anything. Well it is funny when she gets upset about women being younger, more attractive and having larger breasts than she does but that is about it.

boston|1.11.08 @ 5:14PM|#

The real issue here is does ron paul believe in god. Because i know some people who can fix that. I mean i've seen some weird banners at Reason (carpet humping guy i'm looking at you) but that takes the cake.

|1.11.08 @ 5:21PM|#

Look, why don't you guys just gather outside Paul's campaign headquarters, and burn your hankies in protest?

Jesus Christ!

Jerry|1.11.08 @ 5:25PM|#

I never imagined that libertarianism would allow for so much sectarianism. It's supposed to be an individualist political philosophy.

SIV|1.11.08 @ 5:26PM|#

Megan McCardle may have her picture in the dictionary as part of the entry for "cosmopolitan", but what does she know of "libertarianism" ? Not quite as irrelevant and uninteresting as Althouse but still, why?

|1.11.08 @ 5:27PM|#

As one of the named folks above, I just want to point out that this is not sackcloth and ashes for me. I was raising concerns about Ron Paul well before the newsletter thing broke this week.

http://hnn.us/blogs/comments/45044.html

If anything, I was more like Tim in MP and the Holy Grail, warning the knights that the cute little rabbit really had nasty, sharp, pointy teeth. The post Matt links to from Wednesday was me saying "But did you listen to me? No....."

First Little Pig|1.11.08 @ 5:29PM|#

It is curious to me that Reasonoids (those writing on this site) seem surprised to the fact that the libertarian movement has always had a large component of oddballs (including but not limited to racists, survivalists, paranoids, etc) and that those associations have always provided a detraction for anyone proclaiming "libertarian" as their message.

For many years I was loathe to use the term "libertarian" to describe my political leanings and had a small hope that the rise of the Ron Paul Revolution might mainstream the word. Sadly, the newsletters have put it all back to square one.

|1.11.08 @ 5:34PM|#

Pardon me if this has been asked and answered elsewhere on H&R (I just don't have time to read all these threads), but didn't this story get blogged about here a few months ago? Now we've got Reason staff behaving like it's new news. I don't git it.

|1.11.08 @ 5:40PM|#

I never imagined that libertarianism would allow for so much sectarianism. It's supposed to be an individualist political philosophy.

Sadly, it would appear that sectarianism is a built in feature of Human v1.0. The libertarian patch is easily compromised.

Richard|1.11.08 @ 5:45PM|#

Vanessa, The New Republic put up PDF files of the newsletters on their site during the N.H. primary. Reason readers knew about them months ago, but it's now news to the MSM.

|1.11.08 @ 5:46PM|#

I never imagined that libertarianism would allow for so much sectarianism. It's supposed to be an individualist political philosophy.

We'll have to run that by the Libertarian Central Council, but that sounds about right.

|1.11.08 @ 5:50PM|#

Belated copyright infringement payment to Kip Esquire who beat me to my lame Python joke above:

http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1199931352.shtml

|1.11.08 @ 5:51PM|#

Ghost Writer Motorcycle Hero[...]

You mean Fred Reed?

|1.11.08 @ 5:52PM|#

What's great about this whole thing is the fact that some of those assholes listed in this post wringing their hands over Paul's newsletters supported the Iraq War. These people supported a disasterous preemptive war that killed 5,000 Americans and left god knows how many hundered of thousands of Arabs dead and yet they feel some newsletter that Paul sent out to a few thousand survivalists a decade ago is the embarrassment. I get the fact that support for warmongering madmen who have the blood of thousands of Americans on their hands isn't as big of a deal at Washington Cocktail parties as having never associated with anybody who ever expressed an un-PC thought. But can't you people keep your morally bankrupt value system to yourselves? Because it truly is disgusting and a lot of us are getting sick of hearing it. Reason is probably the best political site on the web. You have covered this story ad nauseum. Continuing this little cosmitarian circle jerk is only going to drive off good and loyal readers.

Brandybuck|1.11.08 @ 5:53PM|#

Consider, for example, Walter Williams. Dr. Williams is highly regarded in the libertarian community, and rightly so-he's an effective and powerful voice for economic liberty, not to mention a lot of fun when he guest hosts for Rush. But Dr. Williams has unfortunately flirted with the neo-Confederates to such a degree that he even wrote the foreword to DiLorenzo's ridiculous Lincoln book. He should be prevailed upon to distance himself from that crowd, and if he refuses to do so, others in the community should make it a point to condemn him for it whenever possible.

This is getting WAAAAY out of hand. We're now supposed to condemn Walter Williams for not venerating the Exhalted Saint of Statism? Ridiculous! I can understand liberals promoting the Lincoln myth, because it fits their racial talking points. And I can understand Republicans promoting the Lincoln myth because he helped found their party. But rational libertarians? Aaargh! Lincoln was a mercantilist, suspended Habeous Corpus, ignored the Constitution, presided over the disastrous greenback, grossly high tariffs, etc. Lincoln was the anti-libertarian. Criticizing Lincoln should be as sacred to libertarians as criticizing Roosevelt.

This is no longer about Ron Paul, it's a full blown purge of the less-than-moderate.

|1.11.08 @ 5:53PM|#

Reason readers knew about them months ago, but it's now news to the MSM.

Right. And these posts aren't for us. They're for them.

SIV|1.11.08 @ 5:56PM|#

Vanessa,

Yes, I don't get it either.Particularly because what TNR revealed was largely much less offensive than I expected. Virginia Postrel was right in that the REASON editors didn't much know or care until the shit hit their cosmopolitan fan.

And I'll add......Go Derb' Go !

SIV|1.11.08 @ 5:59PM|#

Brandybuck,


Who is the quote from?

We should prevail on that asshole to go fuck himself.

|1.11.08 @ 6:03PM|#

I guess it's not just Reason.com that is discussing this. Face it folks, this crap hurt the movement. Big time! How are we libertarians (big L and small l) going to deal with and recover from it. On these pages I've seen denial, jumping ship, stubborness, whinging, gloating, dismay, anger ...

Again, what do we do to deal with it?

|1.11.08 @ 6:06PM|#

Criticizing Lincoln should be as sacred to libertarians as criticizing Roosevelt.

This is no longer about Ron Paul, it's a full blown purge of the less-than-moderate.

I agree. Now we have people attacking DiLorenzo for daring to indicate what Lincoln actually did, instead of repeating the mythology?

Jerry|1.11.08 @ 6:09PM|#

How are we libertarians going to deal with and recover from it.

Starve the IRS.

SIV|1.11.08 @ 6:12PM|#

J sub D


I'm an individual, not a collectivist movement. I stand by what I believe, call out those with whom I disagree and don't particularly worry about political correctness and guilt by association.

GILMORE|1.11.08 @ 6:16PM|#

God? Are you listening? It's me, John. Please make Reason stop talking about Ron Paul all the time. It's really boring and there's things going on in the world more important than foo fooing over some 3rd tier media event. Ok? Thanks.

|1.11.08 @ 6:26PM|#

Glad to know I'm not the only one wondering about that.

I roused myself to search the archives and found this:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/120387.html

Which contains this passage:

"First, a 1996 Houston Chronicle article on Paul's last competitive campaign for Congress circled through the blogosphere. The New York Sun's Ryan Sager (a reason contributor) reprinted racist comments gleaned from Paul's newsletter, the exact stuff my nihilistic libertarian chum had warned me about before Paul's campaign got any attention. Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters circulated the comments, adding 'real conservatives don't propose to create special distinctions of criminals based on the color of their skin. (Neither do real libertarians, for that matter.)'"

and these prophetic words from David Weigel:

"His campaign can thrive with this level of attention. But if it starts showing up in the polls, and Paul becomes worth "exposing," you know what to expect."

Sorry GILMORE. I'm done now.

GOD|1.11.08 @ 6:34PM|#

Yo, G-More, whats news? Last i saw you, you were drunk at midnight mass... and by the way, that subsequent rash? No accident.

about those H&R fellas... no dice homie. I got no pull with these freaks. At best I can cause them random headaches, but thats about it.

Sorry. On the upside, theres a forgotten bag of weed under your couch. Hasta.

General Jackson|1.11.08 @ 6:34PM|#

This is a communist plot to thwart and derail the libertarian movement's momentum. We cannot allow the closet Maoists and Stalinists to defeat us.

Repressed Homosexual Stalinist|1.11.08 @ 6:38PM|#

General Jackson | January 11, 2008, 6:34pm | #
This is a communist plot to thwart and derail the libertarian movement's momentum. We cannot allow the closet Maoists and Stalinists to defeat us.

I geniunely resent your insinuation.

Who's Ron Paul, anyway?

|1.11.08 @ 6:47PM|#

"This is getting WAAAAY out of hand. We're now supposed to condemn Walter Williams for not venerating the Exhalted Saint of Statism? Ridiculous! I can understand liberals promoting the Lincoln myth, because it fits their racial talking points. And I can understand Republicans promoting the Lincoln myth because he helped found their party. But rational libertarians? Aaargh! Lincoln was a mercantilist, suspended Habeous Corpus, ignored the Constitution, presided over the disastrous greenback, grossly high tariffs, etc. Lincoln was the anti-libertarian. Criticizing Lincoln should be as sacred to libertarians as criticizing Roosevelt."

No, we're supposed to condemn Williams for associating with Confederate Apologists. It's key to keep in mind that while Lincoln was no spring chicken, the Confederacy was a far more terrible enemy to human freedom. Criticism of FDR should always be important since he didn't even have the pretext of a civil war (a pretty significant damn pretext).

General Jackson|1.11.08 @ 6:49PM|#

Resent it all you want, but you will not exploit my moral code by feigning offense. Communists will resort to anything to ignite a proletarian revolution; they must be opposed! Communists despise and abhor libertarians because libertarians advocate the bane of Communism's existence: personal freedom.

Martin|1.11.08 @ 6:56PM|#

'It's key to keep in mind that while Lincoln was no spring chicken, the Confederacy was a far more terrible enemy to human freedom. Criticism of FDR should always be important since he didn't even have the pretext of a civil war (a pretty significant damn pretext).'

FDR had Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini as pretexts.

GILMORE|1.11.08 @ 7:00PM|#

General Jackson | January 11, 2008, 6:49pm | #
Resent it all you want, but you will not exploit my moral code by feigning offense.

BABELFISH TRANSLATION =

"I am really, really fat and lonely and angry and spend a lot of time being indignent on the intertubes"

Provided to you by a communist plot to make these idiots shut up

|1.11.08 @ 7:01PM|#

Brink Lindesy can damn Ron Paul for his crazy views all he wants, but as evidence of Lindsey's loony inclinations, I offer his belief that "With the collapse of socialism, however, American liberals have begun rediscovering the value of market competition".

Cato's rivers of ink on vouchers, healthcare, Social Security reform haven't made the slightest impact on liberal opinion.

Brandybuck|1.11.08 @ 7:11PM|#

Who is the quote from?

From Timothy Sandefur, the first in the list linked to above. There's some really vile stuff in it, in my opinion. http://sandefur.typepad.com/freespace/2008/01/what-will-liber.html

I've also posted my bloggy screed, in the vain hope I can get this out of my system. http://www.usermode.org/blog/politics/areyouapaleo.html

|1.11.08 @ 7:14PM|#

Add Brink Lindsey. Yeah, what he said.

http://www.brinklindsey.com/?p=139

That's actually pretty damn funny! The other day I posted that "cosmolibertarinism" amounted to Socialist Ends by Free Market Means - and here Brink Lindsey is pretty much saying that's exactly what he's got in mind!

And that's why, for all the goldbug nuttery, questionable racial views, and conspiracy theorists, I'd trust the paleos over the cosmos every time - the paleos, whatever their eccentricities, believe in freedom as an end in itself. The cosmos are prepared to let us have our freedom only because they believe that it will advance their particular set of values.

Methinks they're wrong about that one. And I have a feeling that when the rest of us use our freedom in a manner that doesn't conform to their particular system of values, they're going to be back-peddling on their libertarian small government pronouncements pretty damn quick.

Watch your back around that crowd. Watch it real close!

General Jackson|1.11.08 @ 7:16PM|#

I find someone calling me indignant about Communism a compliment. I burn with a righteous indignation towards Communism. Also, your insults are neither funny nor accurate, but I will award you an A for effort. If you want a good lampooning of libertarianism, I beseech you to read this page: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Libertarian. Be forewarned, however, it contains some R-rated material.

|1.11.08 @ 7:27PM|#

No, we're supposed to condemn Williams for associating with Confederate Apologists. It's key to keep in mind that while Lincoln was no spring chicken, the Confederacy was a far more terrible enemy to human freedom.

------

Because the Confederacy was shutting down hundreds of unfriendly newspapers through force, imprisoning thousands of political enemies, issues arrest warrants for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and starting a war of agression that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. Oh wait, that would have been Lincoln. And Lincoln didn't do it to "free the slaves," he did it because he wanted to preserve the union. He once said: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

I suppose now I'm a Confederate apologist as well?

|1.11.08 @ 7:28PM|#

I just like the phrase "bat shittery" used by Ryan Sager. Yup, that's what we need... less bat shittery.

|1.11.08 @ 7:32PM|#

Talk is cheap. I don't really care what any loudmouthed, hotheaded blogger thinks.

Yes, Lincoln was a terrible president. We've had plenty. But Lincoln is old news.

Ron Paul is out there doing something. If you want to help, send a donation, or better yet, register yourself as a candidate and start doing something about the creeping fascism that threatens to annihilate us.

This more-libertarian-than-thou sh*t is worthless, ineffective, and only helps to advance the tendrils of the suffocating state.

General Jackson|1.11.08 @ 7:35PM|#

Although this "controversey" effectively ends Paul's candidacy, and to some "delegitimizes" the genuine libertarian movement, Paul has helped get the message out. I know of many young people who are now unabashed libertarians because of Paul's candidacy. The only question is: are they genuine libertarians?

Mike Laursen|1.11.08 @ 7:38PM|#

What's great about this whole thing is the fact that some of those assholes listed in this post wringing their hands over Paul's newsletters supported the Iraq War.

OK, explain this to me about this new "cosmopolitan libertarian" meme. It started out with an essay in which Cato was pointed out as the epitome of cosmopolitanism. I keep seeing commenters quoting this or that Cato staff member or guest article writer is pro-war, yet when I go to the Cato website there are all kinds of anti-interventionism, anti-Iraq War statements and position papers.

So is being pro-war really part of the Cato-centered cosmopolitan crowd, or are commenters here just cherry-picking examples?

I rather liked twv's definition of cosmopolitans the other day:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124309.html#876068

"Cosmopolitans accept differences, and don't mire themselves in talking about the badnesses of a few cultural groups. They stick to principles, are mostly indifferent to the foibles of others, and, in so doing, let civilization keep rumbling along."

When I read that, I thought, "Sounds great. Maybe I'm one of these cosmopolitans." But, I'm solidly anti-Iraq War. Am I not invited to the cocktail parties?

|1.11.08 @ 7:53PM|#

Mike Laursen, I sense that anti-military intervention types are allowed to mingle at the cocktail parties, only just don't start using phrases that Ron Paul employs, such as the lack of Congressional declarations or waging war to enforce UN declarations. This kind of sovereigntist talk will cause a few nervous giggles. It's OK however to critique the Iraq war in terms of unintended consequences. The Brink Lindseys present will engage with that sort of discussion. That's my hunch anyway.

|1.11.08 @ 8:06PM|#

This is getting WAAAAY out of hand. We're now supposed to condemn Walter Williams for not venerating the Exhalted Saint of Statism? Ridiculous!

Williams must be purged because he was a probable running mate for Paul, which by association makes Williams an "angry white male" neo-confederate racist just like Paul. What's that you say? It doesn't fit the racism narrative? Sorry, I'm not going to let inconvenient facts get in the way of a good purge.

|1.11.08 @ 8:18PM|#

re: Francisco Torres @5:51

Are you referring to the Fred Reed whose screeds used to grace the pages of the Air Force Times back in the '90s? I used to love is contrarian rants. What's he doing today?

Dedalus|1.11.08 @ 8:25PM|#

Good god you people are pathetic.

Just keep it going, eh?

Hit it harder than even Sharpton would.

You guys are cool.

Dedalus|1.11.08 @ 8:33PM|#

FatDrunkAndStupid wrote:What's great about this whole thing is the fact that some of those assholes listed in this post wringing their hands over Paul's newsletters supported the Iraq War. These people supported a disasterous preemptive war that killed 5,000 Americans and left god knows how many hundered of thousands of Arabs dead and yet they feel some newsletter that Paul sent out to a few thousand survivalists a decade ago is the embarrassment.

And don't forget Radley Torquemada's hard-on for torture.

How cool is that?

Well it's OK to cheer on killing and torturing brown people 5,000 miles away, but we really need to send this Ron Paul creep off to a re-education camp.

Peter|1.11.08 @ 8:40PM|#

Everyone running has done reay shitty things in the past. I think Ron Paul made a horrible mistake but WTF are we beyond forgivness in the country. I mean Pat Buchanan is on MSNBC constantly now and ha has said hatefull things. Don Imus is back. Al Sharpton has said hatefull things about Mormons and Jews. John McCain conistantly called Vietnamese "gooks" and would not apologize for years. Rudy activly asked for Pat Robertsons endorsment which carries with it blaming the gays for 9/11. Hillary aides and Bill Clinton have said some things about Obama that verge on racism. We are living in a world were people do all manner of horrible things and we have had presidents that have done all manner of horrible things often with good intentions. Ron Paul has never been said by anyone to have said anything racist he has never voted in a bigoted manner he has voted as consistantly as one can get. (He voted for price fixing once to secure medications for the VFW.) The man made a serious error in judgment years ago and I think we should forgive him. Or we bring up all the other things I have mentioned and talk about them, give them equal time.

highnumber|1.11.08 @ 8:52PM|#

Pig Mannix,

When you say "Socialist Ends by Free Market Means," what do you mean by "Socialist Ends"? I read the Brink Lindsey piece. He says:

In other words, I support small-government, free-market policies because I believe they provide the institutional framework best suited to advancing the liberal values of individual autonomy, tolerance, and open-mindedness.

Are those the "Socialist Ends" that you don't trust?

|1.11.08 @ 9:02PM|#

Shirt at 8.18

Funny you should mention Fred Reed, I discovered his website a few weeks ago www.fredoneverything.net/

The Political Report is milquetoast in comparison.

The Wine Commonsewer|1.11.08 @ 9:07PM|#

File this under MORE libertarian conspiracy theory fruitcake theories:

According to Wirkman Virkkala, formerly the managing editor of the libertarian monthly Liberty, the racist and survivalist elements that appeared in the newsletter were part of a deliberate "paleolibertarian" strategy, "a last gasp effort to try class hatred after the miserable showing of Ron Paul's 1988 presidential effort."

From the Economist.....

GILMORE|1.11.08 @ 9:31PM|#

General Jackson | January 11, 2008, 7:16pm | #
I find someone calling me indignant about Communism a compliment. I burn with a righteous indignation towards Communism

I see.

Hmm.

Are you quite sure it's not hemmoroids? It feels quite the same at times.

General Jackson | January 11, 2008, 7:35pm | # The only question is: are they genuine libertarians?

good question. you mean, like you?

as far as i can tell, there are some.

GILMORE|1.11.08 @ 9:33PM|#

how many 'real libertarians' never gave a rats ass about ron paul out of curiosity?

New thread!

mmX|1.11.08 @ 9:36PM|#

I thought I read somewhere that Paul is simulatenously running for reelection for his House seat along w/ his presidential run. How is this playing in his home district? Is this all a regurgitation of the '96 race, or are some of these revelations new even to the 14th district?

|1.11.08 @ 9:40PM|#

If he loses his Congressional seat that will be a big win for the movement, eh?

|1.11.08 @ 9:45PM|#

@highnumber

Are those the "Socialist Ends" that you don't trust?

As a matter of fact - yes!

Tell me this - do you have a right to property? To free association? To contract? Do you have those rights intrinsically, or, you might say, are they unalienable - or are they contingent on resulting in a specific social outcome? And what happens if exercise of those rights doesn't result in your preferred outcome? What happens if individuals exercising those rights doesn't result in "advancing the liberal values of individual autonomy, tolerance, and open-mindedness" - does that invalidate them?

What do you think Mr. Lindsey's prescription will be if they don't?

When your test of the validity of a right is it's outcome, then you've effectively acknowledged it isn't a right....

Jerry|1.11.08 @ 9:47PM|#

@mmX
Paul was pressured in the 1996 race to release all of the newsletters, but the media apparently dropped the issue after he was reelected. They share some of the moral responsiblity here as well.

|1.11.08 @ 9:52PM|#

To all of the hand-wringing, Paul-bashing "cosmos" out there ... all of you are seriously slipping into fucktard territory. A cursory perusal of the personal lives of several of our most prominent Founders ( Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, etc.) would reveal a bevy of "shocking" or "unacceptable" opinions/actions. Some of these men engaged in activities that were positively scandalous, even for our time. What mattered most was what they did when it came time to defend liberty.

|1.11.08 @ 9:56PM|#

When your test of the validity of a right is it's outcome, then you've effectively acknowledged it isn't a right....

Perhaps you're familiar with the work of a certain Professor von Mises? You know he believed there was no such thing as natural rights and that capitalism was justified by the consequences it created.

Like Lindsey, I'll side with Mises in this one.

If freedom produced poverty, strife, and conflict, I would be in favor of something else.

Thankfully, we have lots of historical evidence and the good work of many libertarian theorists to show us that freedom works. So instead of accusing people who support freedom because it works of being closet commies, read some of the great classical liberal thinkers who made the same argument.

|1.11.08 @ 10:02PM|#

@Steven Horwitz

Thankfully, we have lots of historical evidence and the good work of many libertarian theorists to show us that freedom works.

We do? Then how is that the only country it was ever tried in exploded into a civil war within a century, and then deteriorated into a New Deal welfare state shortly thereafter?

|1.11.08 @ 10:28PM|#

By the way, if we're using "works" as a criteria, allow me to point out that feudalism produced a stable society for nearly a thousand years - how's liberal democracy lookin' after 200 and some change?

madashell|1.11.08 @ 10:29PM|#

Reason is really pissing me off. I am 37. I have been a libertarian for the last 7 years.

I am Puerto Rican. A "dark minority" if you will.

I have donated to Paul. AND I WILL CONTINUE TO DO So. I don't give a shit if he kept association with racist pricks during the 90s.

His views on most thing are dead on and he must be heard by the American public.

Go Ron Paul!

|1.11.08 @ 10:32PM|#

Now if Al Gore were running for president, people who think global warming was the most pressing political issue on the table, would still vote for him, regardless to what extent his personal uses of energy were contributing to warming. They'd vote for him because they believe his *policies* would lead to less warming.

There's good evidence that Bill Clinton was guilty of sex harassment at the very least, but feminists still supported him in droves because they believed his polices would advance their power.

Despite the fact I am personally disappointed with Ron Paul I am still voting for him because I think his political positions not only support full equality of opportunity before the law and will lead to bettering conditions for all races (especially minorities) but also because he's one of the few candidates who hasn't been mealy mouthed about his opposition to the war; more importantly he's a strict non-interventionist and he's the only candidate who would end the drug war as well as the income tax. I can't see how the other candidates can even compare.

Not to excuse these newsletters (Paul ought to come clean) but numerous political figures have been caught making racist comments *themselves* - McCain's "gook" comment for example - worse sins than Paul surely. Then there's Sharpton's anti-semitism as well as Jackson's (anyone remember "heimy town"?).

I have no idea to what extent Paul might actually hold at least latent racist views himself. But then again, just about everyone I know, including most liberals, have revealed racist or ethnocentric, or homophobic feelings from time to time. My guess is that most people are nominally somewhat racist even if they support full equality in political terms. At the very least, just about everyone has a tendency, on some occasions, to overgeneralize about some group or other based on a very small sample size of experience with members of one group. That might not be about race or homophobia - might even be about hair color of women, political preference, white men with Asian girlfriends, black men with white girlfriends, older men dating younger women, older women dating younger men, computer programmers, environmentalists.

In short, despite personal disappointment with Paul, it's just asinine and naive to change one's vote over something like this; it's the policies that candidates support that matter in political terms. Paul's not running for church deacon.

RogerX|1.11.08 @ 10:53PM|#

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh262/tatsuma_fark/publisher.jpg

So... why isn't anyone discussing Jean McIver, the current Texas RP Field Coordinator who was "subscription manager" for the racist/homophobic RP newsletters?

Not a single mention outside fark.com? There are some google results from the Ron Paul forums that have been purged... talk about a Conspiracy Theory. :)

Sam Grove|1.11.08 @ 11:18PM|#

Then how is that the only country it was ever tried in exploded into a civil war within a century, and then deteriorated into a New Deal welfare state shortly thereafter?

I presume you are speaking of a country that began without the full measure of freedom for all within it's borders.

Sam Grove|1.11.08 @ 11:21PM|#

Anybody had enough purging yet?

Yes, libertarians are opposed to slavery, and most of us hold racism in low esteem.

When can we drop this discussion?

Is it productive in the least?

I think not.

Let the campaign handle the issue in the media as they see fit. If they can satisfy the media that should be sufficient.

highnumber|1.11.08 @ 11:34PM|#

Pig,

I agree with you about the perils of consequentialism, but I disagree with your assessment of paleolibs. I think a lot of them are selfish Constitution-worshipping bastards who value only their own freedom. When push comes to shove they'll find an excuse or a way to take your freedom away (states' rights).

Franklin Harris|1.12.08 @ 12:31AM|#

Ironically, given the way this whole "cosmopolitan libertarianism" thing is shaking out, the first time I ever heard a libertarian really hold forth of the cosmopolitan virtues of libertarian/classical liberal thought, it was Mises Institute faculty member Ralph Raico over drinks during the Mises Institute's annual scholar's conference.

Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|1.12.08 @ 12:50AM|#

Okay, I used to think that Welch as editor was a good idea. Now I think that Welch as editor is REALLY creepy. Matt, have you been tested for OCD?

This shit better not carry over to the magazine - the magazine has been incredible for the last 4-6 months as far as topics go. If your shit comes in and wrecks that, I'm going to track you down and break your little aviators.

|1.12.08 @ 12:59AM|#

Thanks, Sam. We really need a self-appointed traffic cop telling, "Move along now. Nothing to see here. Move along."

Honestly, the biggest surprise to me hasn't been the response from the Reason journalists; it's been the slavish devotion of the Paulistas. I thought it was just a summer thing.

|1.12.08 @ 1:05AM|#

"effectively ends Paul's candidacy"

What's your next guess? Had a look at the fundraising charts lately?

The RP campaign is still growing, and I for one have no intention of throwing in the towel.

-jcr

Franklin Harris|1.12.08 @ 1:13AM|#

I agree with you about the perils of consequentialism, but I disagree with your assessment of paleolibs. I think a lot of them are selfish Constitution-worshipping bastards who value only their own freedom. When push comes to shove they'll find an excuse or a way to take your freedom away (states' rights).

I think you misunderstand the thinking of most paleolibertarians, at least based on the ones I know. Most of them are Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists. They're not constitutionalists at all (Ron Paul being an exception) because they're for no state, period. They favor states rights because they are operationally decentralists, and they're decentralists because, ultimately, what anarcho-capitalism amounts to is the ultimate form of decentralization -- secession, if you will, down to the individual.

There's a logic to it, whether you think it's a good strategy or not. Frankly, I've gone back and forth over the years, and I've finally decided than I'm an unprincipled opportunist when it comes to the "14th amendment" libertarianism of Cato/Institute for Justice vs. the radical decentralism of the paleos. I don't trust judges nearly as much as the Beltway libertarians do, and I don't trust decentralization as much as the paleos do. I'd probably be more sympathetic to the paleos if I didn't live in a state that's outlawed sex toys. (At the same time, I'll note that federal judges have been of no help on that score.) So, as it is, I think the paleos are probably right in the long run, but I'm not going to get upset if a federal court strikes down some anti-liberty state law.

|1.12.08 @ 1:30AM|#

Growing? Where? The hope was that Paul would finish 3rd in NH and gain some momentum. The newsletter flap aside, he finished behind Guiliani.

Rasmussen has Paul polling around 3 percent nationwide. In South Carolina, he's a consensus 6th place behind... well, everyone. When exactly can we expect the Paul campaign to sprint ahead and actually win a delegate? Duncan Hunter has a delegate. Fred Thompson has three and I'm not sure he's awake. Just how many primaries in a row does Paul need to finish out of the money before it is time to throw in the towel?

|1.12.08 @ 1:52AM|#

"the slavish devotion of the Paulistas. I thought it was just a summer thing."

Does this include people who still intend to vote for Paul, Jose? If so that's just so much straw. I have mixed feelings about Paul the man and I don't even agree with all of his platform; I just think he's still far superior to all the other drek in the field.

|1.12.08 @ 2:15AM|#

Tell me this - do you have a right to property? To free association? To contract? Do you have those rights intrinsically, or, you might say, are they unalienable - or are they contingent on resulting in a specific social outcome?

Do you think everyone should have these rights? Even black people, gay people, jews, hispanics? The author of the Ron Paul Newsletters clearly thinks not.

Manuel V.|1.12.08 @ 2:30AM|#

The key to this is Lew Rockwell. The racism, anti-Semitism, and Neo-Confederate nostalgia are documented by Tom Palmer in his blog category of "The Fever Swamp." You can sort through the evidence at http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/cat_the_fever_swamp.php. The comments and exchanges on the blog entries show the Rockwell followers at work.

It really is time for us to categorically condemn the racists and bigots around Lew Rockwell. The trash should be swept out of the freedom movement, so that it is an authentic freedom movement, and not a Trojan Horse for people who are happy to deny equal freedom to their neighbors.

|1.12.08 @ 5:09AM|#

To commenters before: yes, you are engaging in confederate apologetics whether you intend to or not. It's important to maintain criticism of Lincoln but we also need to recognize that his legacy includes the destruction of a state created by slave-owning autocrats. Regardless of his own attitude towards blacks and all of the unconstitutional garbage he pulled, we have to also recognize that the South was a far worse enemy to liberty.

Lincoln should not be treated as the badguy, regardless of all the bad stuff he pulled. And before anybody argues in the defense of State's Rights and secession, I'd also argue that the South had no legitimate claim to independence, since the state had been propped up by aristocrats, regardless of the support of the people. Lew Rockwell can eat a dick, in short.

We should also recognize that neoconfederates and crypto-racists should never be president. If that makes me a cosmo-libertarian then so be it. Because Paul supports some of your pet issues does not mean that you have to vote for him, it means that you shouldn't vote for anybody. This cult of personality is a poison to the movement, and I don't see how the Paulistas are any different in spirit to Trotskyists.

selfish Constitution-worshippi|1.12.08 @ 8:15AM|#

Why all the hate for neo-confederates?


And how exactly do we intend to structure this freedom for white men only society??

Strip the State down to nothing but the Constitutionally- mandated functions AND the stuff that oppresses women and minorities?

Mr. X|1.12.08 @ 9:08AM|#

Did anyone else notice the large number of people in Sandefeur's list who are pro-war, Objectivist libertarians? Their criticisms may be valid, but they do have a reason to not want Ron Paul to carry the libertarian banner.

Just sayin'

|1.12.08 @ 9:09AM|#

Does this include people who still intend to vote for Paul?

The short answer is, "No." The slavish devotion line was not about voting for Paul because he's the best of a bad lot. It was intended for those misguided souls that think Paul has a shot at the title and that this newsletter flap is just The Man keeping Ron Paul down.

I agree with David Boaz when he wrote:

"But of course Ron Paul isn't running for president. He's not going to be president, he's not going to be the Republican nominee for president, and he never hoped to be. He got into the race to advance ideas-the ideas of peace, constitutional government, and freedom. Succeeding beyond his wildest dreams, he became the most visible so-called "libertarian" in America. And now he and his associates have slimed the noble cause of liberty and limited government."

The Paulistas make the libertarian movement look like tired old partisan politics of the Democrats and Republicans, i.e., we really don't care how fucked up our guy is because he's better than your fucked up guy. I'm not saying don't vote for the guy. Hell, vote your conscience. Send in money. Put a sign in your yard. But let's try to be intellectually honest about Paul, the newsletter and some of the company he keeps.

ed|1.12.08 @ 9:26AM|#

I must admit I am enjoying this spectacle of self-flagellation. Boaz's Cato article is worth the read. Reason got into bed with Paul and the morning after he turned out to be a bowser. Live and learn.

NP|1.12.08 @ 9:58AM|#

Wow. I can't believe John Derbyshire--of all people!--gave the best (and most concise and effective) explanation of Paul's reluctance and reticence on this newsletter debacle.

But seriously, Paul does seem to think that it's not his role to police other people's beliefs--however crazy they are--as long as he doesn't personally endorse the ones he disapproves of. Of course, many (including me-self) would say that allowing such beliefs to be published under one's name and benefiting financially from it are an endorsement in all but name, but I can see why he may not share this view.

Mike Laursen|1.12.08 @ 10:42AM|#

Did anyone else notice the large number of people in Sandefeur's list who are pro-war, Objectivist libertarians?

I have no idea how many. Can you report here which one's on the list are pro-war?

VM|1.12.08 @ 10:51AM|#

Mike - Tim has been 100% on board with the war the whole time, FWIW.

SIV|1.12.08 @ 10:54AM|#

Sandefur and his ilk fancy themselves as political education officers and Commissars.
Amazing to read "self-professed libertarians"
proposing purges,dictating individual belief, policing associations of those they identify as in their collective, and--most tellingly-- advocating a centralized State force to limit individual freedom and property rights.

Sounds familiar.......

NP|1.12.08 @ 10:59AM|#

I should add that most of the commentary Matt linked to is pretty good (except for the worthless post by Athena Kerry). Even the short rebuttal by David Gordon, clearly posted as a "your heroes aren't that better" defense (which is to say, not an actual defense at all), is worth considering.

Which brings me to the Timothy Virkkala post. Virkkala makes the point that Mises was not infallible, that he "was not God." And Virkkala is right: As Gordon notes in his post, "Mises contributed articles to American Opinion, the magazine of the John Birch Society, and was a member of its Editorial Advisory Board."

The virtual hero-worship of Paul by many self-identified libertarians--including, I'm afraid to say, many of the Reason staff--should have given other like- but fairer-minded libertarians a pause, and I'm glad to see that many (apparently David Boaz of the Cato Institute included) did refuse to participate in such an intellectually dishonest affair. It should've been apparent from the beginning that Paul's ideological gamut appealed more to paleos than to cosmopolitan (to use Postrel's faux-cool description) libertarians, and this, along with the extreme and sometimes conspiratorial nature of his beliefs and rhetoric, is why I could never give my (however qualified) support to his campaign.

I think the most important lesson to take from the newsletter incident should be this: no matter how appealing you find something or someone, you should always approach the subject with a critical mindset. So folks, let's keep this in mind next time we see another Paul emerge--or when someone dares argue that Mises or Friedman was not as libertarian as he's made out to be.

|1.12.08 @ 11:03AM|#

It's one thing to write the "I appreciate your interest in this important issue and thank you your for your continued support" letter. It's another to publish a newsletter with your name on the masthead for profit. I also think there's something a little greasy about the anonymous authorship of the odius remarks. This allows the publisher to take credit when it's convenient and deny responsibility when it's convenient. I see more than a little playing both sides in Paul's responses over the years. If, as a publisher, you're not going to require that essays have a byline, then yours is only name left for credit or blame.

And SIV, it's a little early in the morning for the John Galt crack pipe. I'm only on my third Cosmotarian double latte here. As far as I can tell, no one has proposed we form a secret police and make those involved in this bat shittery disappear in the night. The issue is some libertarians see the L'Affair Newsletter as evidence we are sailing on a ship of fools while others are quite happy singing Ron Paul sea shanties.

|1.12.08 @ 11:26AM|#

Can't even imagine how a Postrel or Brink Lindsey sea shanty would go...

SIV|1.12.08 @ 11:43AM|#

jose,


Sandefur advocates everything I said quite explicitly, at least until my last statement which I took from his link to some guy Watson.

For example, if one believes it is very bad to be a racist, and that all humans are equal in their moral dignity, then one should have to explain why federal law should not be used to prevent some forms of racial discrimination. After all, if it is bad to be a racist in Arkansas, it's equally bad to be a racist in Michigan. In my case, I resolved this dilemma by breaking with free market absolutism in favor of federal civil rights legislation. I think this position is very defensible, both morally and politically.

Most people agree with me: it should be illegal everywhere in the United States for employers to hire solely on the basis of race. Some things are more important than the property rights of business owners.

What other (non force fraud, coercion) "moral and political" crimes do these people want to prohibit with State force? I suspect the list would be lengthy.

|1.12.08 @ 12:07PM|#

the John Galt crack pipe

WBAGNFARB

Derrick|1.12.08 @ 12:39PM|#

When can we drop this discussion? Is it productive in the least?

I believe this *is* a productive discussion. I think what everyone is worried about is protecting the libertarian "brand name." We can't have accusations of racism tainting it, the way the Valdez oil spill tarnished the name of Exxon.

Let the campaign handle the issue in the media as they see fit. If they can satisfy the media that should be sufficient.

If the campaign handles it well enough to make the media happy and the issue go away, problem solved and discussion over. In the meantime, see my comment above about protecting the libertarian brand.

|1.12.08 @ 12:40PM|#

"What other (non force fraud, coercion) "moral and political" crimes do these people want to prohibit with State force? I suspect the list would be lengthy."

You're calling people who disagree with you "political education officers" and "Commissars" because you suspect what they might think. My irony meter is pegged.

Ron Paul enjoyed surprising success because he managed to talk about libertarian ideas without sounding like an arrogant asshat, pedantic prick, crazy-as-a-shit-house-rat conspiracy theorist or a Mises-Hayek-Rand random word generator. While I remain skeptical about the American public willingness to really tolerate the freedom of others, libertarian ideas can get a bit of traction in public square. The problem is not the message; it is the messengers. The biggest problem with libertarian ideas are libertarians. If we were as smart as we think we are, we'd hire a PR firm and a spokesperson. We'd get practical and find someone who could sell our message. But no, as I have said a hundred times, libertarians care about winning arguments, not elections.

|1.12.08 @ 2:20PM|#

When will David Boaz run for office?

Sje|1.12.08 @ 2:51PM|#

I just posted a comment at an older thread when I noticed that the discussion had already shifted again, so I will shameless repost it here. As for when David Boaz will run for office: I'm afraid he is probably the kind of person who decided long ago that he'd be more effective by way of thinktankery. But if there's going to be anyone who has the right combination of classical liberal principle, gravitas, and sense of political reality to do it, it might well be him.

So here goes the repeat of the other comment:

As for the allegations of "commie style party purge," let me say that I feel that most of the prominent libertarians who have been involved in it really dislike commie style party purges. They like to avoid them if they can.

The older ones have seen some purges in the early days of the American libertarian movement and they know that they are nasty affairs and that it is much better to politely disagree than to pompously purge. This is why no commie style party purge has happened so far, even though many of the present purgers were well aware of Paul's old friends and their sympathies, and could have predicted this type of mud might well be dug up sooner or later even if they weren't aware of the particular smoking gun that would be used to do it.

But like it or not, Kirchik has forced the issue. Paul is taking a big hit and the purgers don't want to see the whole movement that they painstakingly constructed be pulled asunder along with it. And I do not blame them.

For those who are getting a little lost in the flurry of writing I really recommend David Boaz's piece at Cato@Liberty. He writes that "[David and his co-workers] had never seen the newsletters that have recently come to light, and I for one was surprised at just how vile they turned out to be. But we knew the company Ron Paul had been keeping..." and that is why the Catoites had been so reluctant to cheer on the Paul campaign, but had not found it necessary so far to throw a big ole public hissy-fit about it either.

And that reaction, as well as the current change in direction, which has been shared by many, is I think no more than prudent. Commie style party purges are ugly and should not be wantonly engaged in. But you cannot endlessly continue to remain silent about a major public figure who you are in the minds of the public closely associated with if that major public figure does something really really stoopid.

Mr. X|1.12.08 @ 3:43PM|#

Poking around, Postrel, Sandefeur, Sager, Somin, Althouse, and McArdle are all pro-war. I'm sure some more of the people on Tim Sandefeur's list are pro-war too, though a few are not.

In any event, having Ron Paul associate libertarianism with anti-war sentiments may encourage some to react more strongly to the New Republic article than they would otherwise.

|1.12.08 @ 3:57PM|#

Well, for all the noise, this scandal doesn't seem to be hurting Paul much. He just won another straw poll in Arizona.

@Sje

As for the allegations of "commie style party purge," let me say that I feel that most of the prominent libertarians who have been involved in it really dislike commie style party purges. They like to avoid them if they can.

The laughable part about this is that anybody in the beltway crowd has the arrogance to believe they're in a position to be purging anybody. They're a minority. They amount to a fringe movement within a fringe movement. It'd be like Lichtenstein invading China. As far as any connection with any actual libertarian activism, they have none whatsoever, unless you count posting on each other's blogs (which is probably why they're so full of themselves - they're barely aware any other libertarians exit). These are the people whose picture you see in the dictionary under "Armchair Anarchist".

Somehow, they can't quite get it through their heads that the popular libertarian movement coalesced around Ron Paul, not the Cato Institute.

I mean, what are they gonna do? Launch a denial of service attack on lewrockwell.com?

Egosumabbas|1.12.08 @ 4:41PM|#

I'm doing research into who specifically wrote the newsletters (I think most agree Lew Rockwell was the brains behind the operation). If you have any evidence, please contact me through my website, I have a thread open on the matter.

Sje|1.12.08 @ 4:52PM|#

"I mean, what are they gonna do? Launch a denial of service attack on lewrockwell.com?"

No.

Rather, I think they'll wait out the teapot tempest and keep working on spreading libertarian ideas among academics and journalists and politicians and other such establishment figures who-like it or not-have and continue to have tremendous power as second-hand dealers in ideas (Hayek's words, not mine.) Or, in the case of those who work for Reason: publish an excellent political magazine that is among the few in the US that offers a place for real investigative journalism, like Radley's pieces on Dixie justice.

|1.12.08 @ 5:32PM|#

From a previous RP thread:
All the more remarkable since the "scandal" wasn't picked up by the MSM at all before the primary was over. There were other polls that had Dr Paul in the range he actually finished in, anyway.

Nonsense. I heard about it on the Sean Hannity radio show the afternoon of the primary, and I read about it on the blogs of several beltway "libertarians" at least five hours before the polls closed in New Hampshire.

Anybody with any actual sympathy with liberty would at least have had the decency to wait until the New Hampshire polls closed before starting the long discussion that is needed between old and new libertarians about the import of Paul's tawdry old newsletters. But no, the beltway "libertarians" and pro-war "neolibertarians" had to outrace the mass media in spreading TNR's timely smears ASAP, so that voters could be immediately spun by the smears. Paul's poll numbers ranged from 10% to 17%, and there are some good reasons (e.g. Paul's young vote and the fact that many young people don't have land lines) to expect that as in Iowa the polls would slightly underestimate his vote. There is no doubt that Paul's support plunged that very day as the MSM reported TNR's smears. The beltway "libertarian" blogs may have played a role here as well -- and certainly did not at all try to avoid having such an influence. Now our beltway "libertarians" can brag to their paycheck vampire friends that they helped deny delegates to Paul. Thus they can avoid being tarnished by the "kookiness" of libertarianism -- nominally by its "racism" and "homophobia", but actually by its hoped-for consequence of throwing most of these paycheck vampires out of their federal jobs and making them get real ones.

I know these people. I've been to their parties. They spend their days in pseudosophisticated debate, taking a libertarian position amongst their paycheck vampire peers merely as an entertaining devil's advocate. Their political activism consists almost entirely of lobbying for very narrow special favors for corporations -- a special exception here in the tax code, a special dispensation there from an environmental regulation. But they do not lobby for any liberty for you or I. They do not give a damn about our liberty. And now the proof is here for all the world to see -- check out the timestamps of their blog articles propagating the very well timed anti-Paul smear campaign well before the New Hampshire polls closed.

Brandybuck|1.12.08 @ 5:51PM|#

It's important to maintain criticism of Lincoln but we also need to recognize that his legacy includes the destruction of a state created by slave-owning autocrats. Regardless of his own attitude towards blacks and all of the unconstitutional garbage he pulled, we have to also recognize that the South was a far worse enemy to liberty.

Crypto-neocon translation: "It's important to maintain criticism of Bush but we also need to recognize that his legacy includes the destruction of an autocratic state. Regardless of his own attitude towards Muslims and all of the unconstitutional garbage he pulled, we have to also recognize that Iraq is a far worse enemy to liberty."

Sandeep|1.12.08 @ 5:53PM|#

From over here, it looks like your movement was infiltrated by people with a very different agenda. Lew Rockwell seems to be the key to it, as he has laid out the red carpet for all sorts of racist nutters, as his critics have pointed out for years. If "cosmopolitan" just means "not a racist," then everyone should be one. And it would neatly exclude Lew Rockwell and his merry band, who have undertaken for years to infiltrate illiberal ('uncosmopolitan') ideas and people into the libertarian movement.

traditionallibertarian|1.12.08 @ 6:00PM|#

Cosmopolitans accept differences, and don't mire themselves in talking about the badnesses of a few cultural groups.

Unless of course you are a rural or suburban libertarian who does not share the preferences and tastes of a "cosmopolitan libertarian", in which case both their lobbyist and taxpayer funded bully pulpits and the force of law will be used to suppress your preferences. If you like preparing to survive disasters, if you like organizing local militias per the 2nd amendment and English legal tradition, if you are an anti-communist who remembers who John Birch was, if you don't recognize homosexual marriages as real marriages, if you like to hang around and live next to people of your own race (as the vast majority of people in the U.S. do) and actually admit this without shame, or if you have any number of other common preferences used as tools of slander and shame by the politically correct empire builders, the "cosmopolitan libertarians" will be happy to join with the beltway crowd in using their bully pulpits and the force of law to call you a "kook" and make sure only they get to express their preferences in the marketplace, and you don't.

|1.12.08 @ 6:35PM|#

Paul's poll numbers ranged from 10% to 17%, and there are some good reasons (e.g. Paul's young vote and the fact that many young people don't have land lines) to expect that as in Iowa the polls would slightly underestimate his vote. There is no doubt that Paul's support plunged that very day as the MSM reported TNR's smears.

Actually, there is some doubt about that. From what I've been able to glean from news accounts, the "scandal" barely made a dent in New Hampshire.

The best analysis I've seen postulated that since McCain and Romney were so close, a lot of potential Paul voters jumped to support one of those two as their preferred candidate. If one of them had been decisively ahead, Paul would have gotten more votes (similar to the reason people usually won't vote for 3rd parties - they don't want to risk electing the candidate they hate worse).

Actually, if you look at the number of votes he received, rather than the percentages, Paul actually received a greater number of votes than expected. So the news from NH isn't quite as bad as it appeared at first.

|1.12.08 @ 6:53PM|#

Regarding the behavior of the "cosmopolitan libertarian" bloggers and the MSM on the crucial New Hampshire primary day, it's also quite relevant that the pro-war "libertarian" Neil Boortz and other neocon radio hosts, after having hardly mentioned Ron Paul and assiduously not letting Ron Paul supporters on the air for many months, all of a sudden became very loud in attacking Paul the day of the New Hampshire primary. And that Fox News banned Paul from their New Hampshire debate.

The behavior of the right-wing MSM was far more influential on that infamous January 8th than that of the beltway "cosmopolitan libertarian" bloggers, but their _pattern_ was the same -- pretend that Ron Paul doesn't exist until the Iowa caucus made it plain to everybody that he does. Then, especially on primary day itself, make sure that any and all dirt against Paul gets a full and loud hearing before the polls close.

Why was the pattern of right-wing MSM and beltway "libertarians" coverage of Ron Paul basically the same? I have hung out at their parties. I have attended their think-tank seminars. I have plotted lobbying strategies with them. These beltway people attend the same parties, read and watch exclusively each other's stuff, and form the same narrow monoculture.

Read up on what Cass Sunstein says about social networks becoming echo-chambers of belief. Both MSM journalists and hosts and beltway "libertarian" bloggers depend on government employees, lobbyists, and other beneficiaries of your paycheck for their information sources and for their social life. They cannot afford to be associated with a politician who if successful would threaten the jobs of many of these paycheck vampires. The spate of "I'm not with that kook Ron Paul" blog posts on New Hampshire primary day are very good for figuring out which bloggers are members of this beltway "libertarian" monoculture.

It took the Internet for an actual different culture, that of the Paul/Rockwell "paleo" libertarians, reflecting the traditional values of American liberty rather than "cosmopolitan" pseudolibertarian trend-speak, to be heard. And was it heard! Paul has brought more new young people to the libertarian movement than anyone since Ayn Rand, and far more quickly than Rand could have ever hoped. Paul ranked above all other Republican candidates in Google searches and in Google, Yahoo, and other search engine hits. A very different culture from the MSM-government-beltway "libertarian" monoculture. A culture that reflects the real America, rather than the one-way bullhorn of the MSM or the pseudosophisticated devil's-advocate arguments of the friends of the paycheck vampires (excuse me, of the "cosmopolitan libertarians").

|1.12.08 @ 7:43PM|#

Karen de Coster v the Kochtopus

All good stuff:

http://www.karendecoster.com/blog/archives/002714.html

Boot Out Lew Rockwell|1.12.08 @ 8:11PM|#

Do the defenders of "those newsletters" not know what was in them? (http://www.tnr.com/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca) Do they really doubt who wrote them? (Hint: Lew Rockwell's name keeps coming up....read on and see one reason why.) Ron Paul says he admires Rosa Parks. Let's take him at his word. But is that the view of his close advisors and supporters? Here's what Palmer found out about what was said about Ms. Parks when she died by Rockwell, DiLorenzo, and their supporters on Lew Rockwell's website
http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/026647.php

Is that the movement anyone posting here wants to be part of?

Mark Bahner|1.13.08 @ 12:11AM|#

Am I reading this right? John Derbyshire wants Ron Paul for President?! John Derbyshire...of the National Review?

chris matthews|1.13.08 @ 12:13AM|#

I've read the newsletters. I just don't allow a decades old rag whose author can't be attributed inform my ideology.

Mr. Kirchick has solicited an endorsement for Giuliani. He didn't bother to disclose that however.

Ron Paul would free the most black men since Lincoln. Fact.

http://www.thecitizensperspective.com/content/ron-paul-would-free-most-black-men-lincoln

Here's a piece discussing Kirchick's tacit endorsement of Rudy and the number crunching on pardoning non-violent drug offenders.

chris matthews|1.13.08 @ 12:14AM|#

Yeah Mark, David Fredosso also supports him.

Dustin|1.13.08 @ 12:16AM|#

>>I wonder what the blacks think. Has someone asked the blacks?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3z8nVaMkuw

Mark Bahner|1.13.08 @ 12:40AM|#

Yeah Mark, David Fredosso also supports him.

TWO people at National Review support a small-government candidate for President?! Well, I've got the vapors...this is just too huge. I'll have to lie down for awhile.

;-)

chris matthews|1.13.08 @ 12:54AM|#

heh. I felt the same way. They started off just kind of tacitly rebuking some of the nonsense the others were spouting, then Derb came out swinging, and Fredosso kind of snuck in behind him.

Mark S|1.13.08 @ 1:33AM|#

I just don't see what the big friggin' deal is. Look at what gets the nigra victimologists all worked up today with Billary. Who cares. Half a billion dead and the Cosmos are worried about their cocktail party invites.

Go Ron Paul.

Mark S|1.13.08 @ 1:34AM|#

And the "welfare checks after three days" slight was comedy gold.

|1.13.08 @ 2:02AM|#

Timothy Sandefur belongs over at Huffington Post along with the other poseurs and cowards who dominate Cato and apparently Reason.

Comstock Load|1.13.08 @ 4:08AM|#

Forbes.com is publishing hit pieces about Ron Paul too.


Curtains For Ron Paul's Web Crusade

Admirably, from what I've observed so far, the publication seems to be peddling their bullshit with a bit of class, and Greenberg's screed managed not to join this repulsive, racial-scandalmongering circle jerk.

Although suggesting that RP supporters might be hiring professional spammers is cowardly crotch kick!

Mike Laursen|1.13.08 @ 9:52AM|#

If you like preparing to survive disasters, if you like organizing local militias per the 2nd amendment and English legal tradition, if you are an anti-communist who remembers who John Birch was, if you don't recognize homosexual marriages as real marriages, if you like to hang around and live next to people of your own race (as the vast majority of people in the U.S. do) and actually admit this without shame

Yikes! You've crossed over into klanotarian territory!

Mike Laursen|1.13.08 @ 9:56AM|#

Seriously, though, I don't get this thing where you only want to be surrounded by other white people. Haven't you ever enjoyed any music or food from other cultures? Not seen all the beautiful non-white women? Do you never get a little bored with matching cardigans, square dancing, golf, and potlucks with Jello salad?

|1.13.08 @ 10:39AM|#

Jello salad? With baby marshmallows? Oooh, yum.

Egosumabbas|1.13.08 @ 10:40AM|#

Seriously, though, I don't get this thing where you only want to be surrounded by other white people. Haven't you ever enjoyed any music or food from other cultures? Not seen all the beautiful non-white women? Do you never get a little bored with matching cardigans, square dancing, golf, and potlucks with Jello salad?

Do not peddle the filth and decadence of the city to us, heathen! Begone! Purity of essence.

Mike Laursen|1.13.08 @ 10:55AM|#

Jello salad? With baby marshmallows? Oooh, yum.

I've gotta confess. I'm a sucker for the jello with baby marshmallows, too.

Throw Lew Rockwell Under the B|1.13.08 @ 11:20AM|#

Former Ron Paul chief of staff John Robbins lays it out:

Dear Lew,

You have now had three opportunities -1996, 2001, and 2008 - to prove that you are a friend of Ron Paul and freedom, and you have failed to do so each time.

This week, for the third time, the puerile, racist, and completely un-Pauline comments that all informed people say you have caused to appear in Ron's newsletters over the course of several years have become an issue in his campaign. This time the stakes are even higher than before. He is seeking nationwide office, the Republican nomination for President, and his campaign is attracting millions of supporters, not tens of thousands.

Three times you have failed to come forward and admit responsibility for and complicity in the scandals. You have allowed Ron to twist slowly in the wind. Because of your silence, Ron has been forced to issue repeated statements of denial, to answer repeated questions in multiple interviews, and to be embarrassed on national television. Your callous disregard for both Ron and his millions of supporters is unconscionable.

If you were Dr. Paul's friend, or a friend of freedom, as you pretend to be, by now you would have stepped forward, assumed responsibility for those asinine and harmful comments, resigned from any connection to Ron or his campaign, and relieved Ron of the burden of having to repeatedly deny the charges of racism. But you have not done so, and so the scandal continues to detract from Ron's message.

You know as well as I do that Ron does not have a racist bone in his body, yet those racist remarks went out under his name, not yours. Pretty clever. But now it's time to man up, Lew. Admit your role, and exonerate Ron. You should have done it years ago.

John Robbins, Ph.D.
Chief of Staff
Dr. Ron Paul, 1981-1985
http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/open-letter-to-lew-rockwell/

|1.13.08 @ 12:35PM|#

How do you "politely disagree" about racial equality?

|1.13.08 @ 3:46PM|#

well, the president of the Austin NAACP supports Paul.

http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_08_29_linder.mp3

Perhaps Reason and Cato writers are blowing this out of proportion?

|1.13.08 @ 3:50PM|#

There are a lot of people who don't fit into the political mix - I've been working with a bunch of people from the JBS on a few projects (since they actually have resources). I whole-heartedly disagree with them on many worldviews, but creating smaller government is something that brings us together.

I'm not troubled by this revelation because, 1) I knew about the newsletters from the beginning, 2) I was pretty sure that RP wouldn't give up the names, and 3) I still don't care. I've associated with many people who are some sort of -ist in my life and consider some of them my friends. Playing the guilt by association game is NOT libertarian where we claim to judge people as individuals and not based on their friends, though this attitude may fly with the outside world.

RP is my man because regardless of his personal views (which I think are genuinely NOT racist and trying hard NOT to be homophobic) he is working towards the smaller government that I want and view as part of my life's work in accomplishing.

And please, for the love of God, remember the news cycle folks. If you think this kills RP, just remember that this will be old hat in 4 days.

|1.13.08 @ 4:32PM|#

Perhaps Reason and Cato writers are blowing this out of proportion?

Given that even on a bad day, Ron Paul has the kind of support Reason and Cato can only have wet dreams about, I'm contented to let them keep blowing.

The backlash will truly be a thing of beauty to see....

Egosumabbas|1.13.08 @ 5:12PM|#

The backlash will truly be a thing of beauty to see....

The backlash on whom? Cato, Reason, or Lew Rockwell? Or on all three?

Big Ole Badass Bob The Cattle |1.13.08 @ 5:52PM|#

After the backwash, it will be even more beautiful if the above mentioned mend their rifts, and get back to the business of supporting
the man who should be packing his bags next year, for a stay at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

|1.13.08 @ 7:20PM|#

Austin NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist

http://tinyurl.com/28g7p9

|1.13.08 @ 7:35PM|#

More from Austin NAACP President Who Supports Dr. Paul

This link provides the interview behind the story that Rick Barton linked above.
http://zaphodforpresident.com/2008/01/13/is-ron-paul-racist-the-naacps-take/

This NAACP official knows Dr. Paul, defends him, and states that the establishment is attacking Dr. Paul because Dr. Paul threatens the establishment. Isn't it time that Reason gets behind Dr. Paul, too?

Mr. X|1.13.08 @ 8:13PM|#

Foxhunter makes a pretty good point. This story really doesn't have legs outside of libertarian circles.

Of course that means that there won't be any substantial "backlash" outside of those same narrow circles.

|1.13.08 @ 8:14PM|#

After poking around at some of the links (and reading up on the whole Lew Rockwell--Mieses Institute stuff), it really looks like the Libertarian Party had better clean house. And pronto. You've got neo-Nazis, race war fanatics, Holocaust deniers, White Identity and slavery apologists running around calling themselves "libertarians" and making themselves quite at home.

Rockwell seems to be using the cover of the Mieses Institute to smuggle in some pretty ghastly players into place.

Trust me, guys--you don't want this to happen. No one in the MSM is paying attention because Ron Paul is still lumped in the "kook" category, but he ever does get in the top three in one of the primaries, the reporters are going to start poking around and "libertarianism" will be tarred immediately as "the party that likes to get in bed with neo-Nazis and White Identity types."

|1.13.08 @ 8:55PM|#

Hi, grumpy realist, you might be new to libertarianism, so you may not be aware that Libertarian with a capital L refers to the Libertarian Party and its members. There is a much broader libertarian movement (with a small L). A lot of the things you referred to in your comment have nothing to do with the Libertarian Party.

Classically Liberal|1.13.08 @ 11:08PM|#

Here's another commentary:

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2008/01/skunks-and-their-tactics.html

The people at the Mises Institute, who were closely tied to the Ron Paul newsletters that have so many people sick to their stomachs are stooping to a new low. These people have no shame.

Read on....

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2008/01/skunks-and-their-tactics.html

|1.13.08 @ 11:10PM|#

grumpy realist,

Yeah, I think for both we libertarians as well as Libertarians, your point is worth looking into.

|1.13.08 @ 11:17PM|#

Classically Liberal,

Whoa! Your link calls Hans Hermann Hoppe "Nazi friendly"! Can you back that up?

|1.13.08 @ 11:34PM|#

Rockwell seems to be using the cover of the Mieses Institute to smuggle in some pretty ghastly players into place.

"Seems"? Can you back up your lame intent at crass innuendo with something that, at least, has some semblance of evidence?

|1.13.08 @ 11:35PM|#

Isn't it time that Reason gets behind Dr. Paul, too?

Don't hold your breath... I suspect most of the staff is composed of Beltway Libertarians, too cozy with The Man

|1.13.08 @ 11:40PM|#

This week, for the third time, the puerile, racist, and completely un-Pauline comments that all informed [sic] people say you [Lew Rockwell] have caused [sic] to appear in Ron's newsletters over the course of several years have become an issue in his campaign.

"Have caused"? As if by magic? As if he conjured the words? Lame way of trying to insinuate Mr. Rockwell wrote those words.

Maybe I have read a different Lew, because I have not been able to find a single reference of a writing by Lew that could be put together side by side with those words.

Eric Dondero|1.14.08 @ 7:18AM|#

Mr. Robbins is only half-correct in his open letter to Lew Rockwell. Yes, Rockwell was responsible for a large portion of those writings. I'd say (along with his intern staff of Jeff Tucker and Mark Thornton), maybe 50 to 60% of the Newsletter.

But Ron Paul himself wrote a substantial amount of the Newsletters. If you could call it "writing." It was more like scribbling on a yellow pad, then interpreted by his daughter Lori, or his top editor Jean McIver in Houston. Or, he would also record cassette tapes on his 1970s style tape recorder at home in his back office in Lake Jackson.

My general impression was the Lew was responsible for the more controversial stuff that we're hearing about today, certainly the comments on Blacks. But this is no great new revelation.

I've been amazed at the absolutely laziness of the media in this whole fiasco. All this came out in 1996, during our first Congressional campaign. It hit the Houston and Austin (and in-District Victoria, TX) media. Why no enterprising reporter has trecked on down to Victoria to dig through old copies of the Victoria Advocate is beyond me?

There was a period in the Summer to Fall of 1996 when Lew owned up to the comments. He admitted that they were his remarks, so as to save Ron some embarrassment.

I'd also point out, that it was my general impression that editing and writing tasks for the Newsletters was divided up, roughly: Lew Rockwell - Racial/Crime topices, Ron Paul - Foreign Policy/Israel/Banking issues, Mark Thornton - General Economics, Jeff Tucker - Politics/Libertarian Party & Movement.

Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
1997-2003

1992 Ron Paul for President Exploratory Comm. Coordinator

1987/88 Ron Paul, Libertarian for President Travel Aide/Advace Man

Eric Dondero|1.14.08 @ 7:23AM|#

You know, there's someone right here on the H&R Forum who can confirm all this:

T. Franklin Harris

Franklin lives only 50 miles away from Lew & his operation, in Anniston, AL. I believe, if I remember correctly, that Franklin interned for Lew for a while. And that period may have been in the mid-1990s.

Franklin? I notice your comments here neglect to mention your ties to Rockwell's operation? What light can you shed on all this??

|1.14.08 @ 8:06AM|#

Some at Reason are more interested in being part of the Beltway libertarian establishment I'm afraid. They knew about the Newsletters but as soon as the National media picked up on the story they threw Ron over the side. It definitely is a profile isn't courage on their part.

|1.14.08 @ 8:06AM|#

"I suspect most of the staff is composed of Beltway Libertarians, too cozy with The Man."


I have to laugh at the spin of this as some kind of squabble between a handful of latte-sipping "inside-the-beltway" cosmo-libertarians and the "majority" of Main Street, "in-touch-with-America" paleo-libertarians. Maybe it's just me, but the whole "klanatarian"/Ron Paul thing reminds me of Y2K. Gary North was a big cheerleader for Y2K as the great apocalypse. I'd bet my dollar that some of the same folks who were digging bunkers in the backyard and buying seven years supply of canned whaat were the same that saw the Ron Paul revolution changing America.

|1.14.08 @ 8:09AM|#

Yeah, I'm sure that Ron Paul's lame handling of the situation (and varying explanations of the newsletters over the years) had nothing to do with Reason taking a critical look at Paul.

|1.14.08 @ 8:51AM|#

Rick Barton:

Go here: http://rightwatch.tblog.com/archive/2007/02/

|1.14.08 @ 8:52AM|#

He explained it in 2001 when Texas Monthly interviewed him. I fault Ron for not getting this out back in FEB of 2007. We've known about them for years in Texas.

IMHO, this is more about beltway libertarians trying to remain viable. It was a hit done by CATO I suspect. I think they're more interest in purging Lew Rockwell. Long simmering feud. Goes back to Murray Rothbard Ayn Rand.

NANAACP President, Ron Paul is not a racist

Jay D|1.14.08 @ 11:27AM|#

NANAACP President, Ron Paul is not a racist

Good enough for me.

|1.14.08 @ 4:35PM|#

Based on the commentary I've dug up (check the link I posted above), Hoppe is in bed with quite a few neo-Nazi groups in Germany. But the guy seems to be so wacko the only interpretation I've been able to put on his remarks is as the modern update of the old medieval argument that "the Pope owns the world", with "Modern States" to replace the Pope.

Self-identified "libertarians" running around the web posting how they "can't find anything wrong about those newsletters" aren't helping your image, people. Just a hint.

AttentionDC_getrealjobs|1.14.08 @ 5:22PM|#

Perhaps Reason and Cato writers are blowing this out of proportion?

That's the understatement of the year. They are intentionally sabotaging his campaign.

|1.14.08 @ 6:12PM|#

Political correctness is a very strong signal of statism. In the mind of a statist, something is either required or banned. Either homosexual behavior is banned or it is required that everybody respect homosexual behavior. Either races or discriminated against by law or it is required that everybody treat races as equal in associational decisions. Statism, exemplified by its ideology of political correctness, recognizes no middle ground where all preferences and tastes can be respected by law. In the world of the statist, racial equality under law cannot occur without expunging private racial discrimination by screaming taboo and force of law, nor can homosexuals "be equal" unless everybody is forced to recognize homosexual marriages.

In a world of liberty homosexual freedom and "homophobia" would coexist. Racial equality under law and racial discrimination in personal decisions by those who prefer such discrimination would coexist. Neither side would need to feel politically threatened by the other. All persons could satisfy their preferences, whether "vices" or "bigotry" or otherwise, as long as they are not initiating force. But this is not the wolrd the "cosmopolitan libertarians" want. They demand not just eradicating legal restrictions on their own vices, an opinion on which all libertarians agree, but they demand that we in the suburbs and the rural areas and anybody else who does not share their tastes recognize what many of us choose to believe are vices, for example homosexual "marriages", adultery, and use of addictive drugs, as virtues. If we do not, they will lash out at us with the most viscious kind of hate as if we were trying to ban their vices. This is "very small tent" libertarianism since, as Ron Paul is demonstrating, the vast majority of libertarians are of the rural and suburban type, not of the urban "cosmopolitan" type.

By eagerly participating in the politically correct smear campaign against Ron Paul on the very day of the traditionally most crucial primary, New Hampshire, many of the beltway "libertarian" / "cosmopolitan libertarian" has crowd have revealed their true anti-libertarian, pro-government colors. Some of these are just what Tom Paine called "sunshine patriots and summer soldiers", Benedict Arnolds who switch sides at the first signs of trouble. But most have just lived around D.C. so long that they have become statists in their hearts. By getting so worked up about about somebody else's personal preferences and opinions about race and homosexuality -- which they choose to view as vices, as is their right -- during the middle of the election campaign, they have demonstrated a preposterously strong streak of political correctness and thereby revealed a strong statist instinct.

Only a statist believes that the middle of an election campaign, much less the very day of the traditionally most important primary, is the best time to publically air the possible personal vices of libertarian candidates, in order to distract attention away from that candidate's political views and smear him. Indeed, this has always been the statist's favorite tactic for smearing anti-government types in older organizations like the John Birch Society. Now we all except the "bigotry" of the JBS as historical gospel -- the legacy of liberal and National Review-type MSM statists who then controlled the memetic agenda. The beltway "libertarian" smear campaign against Ron Paul is repeating almost exactly the tactics that statists like Bill Buckley pulled against the small-government JBS and the anti-interventionist Taft wing of the Republican party a generation ago.

In the statist world of the "cosmopolitan libertarians," only cosmopolitans get to satisfy their preferences and tastes (or as some others choose and should be free to choose to view them, vices) in the marketplace. Statists in their guts, the "cosmopolitan libertarians" view any differences in values as political threats. Suburban and rural preferences and tastes, whether vices (like racism and homophobia) or otherwise must therefore be shouted down and banned, and even the most ardent libertarian like Ron Paul for whom it is suggested might hold any such values they view as a political threat. That is why so much effort has been put in by, not just the straightforward enemies of liberty in the pro-war crowd, but even by some anti-war DC "cosmopolitan libertarians", to sabotage Ron Paul's campaign.

|1.14.08 @ 6:40PM|#

I think they're more interest in purging Lew Rockwell.

I've gotten a good belly laugh out of the beltway "libertarian" crowd talk about "purging" or "booting out" Lew Rockwell, as if they are some communist party avante-guarde who can dictate orthodoxy to the rest of us. Rockwell was "purged" by the beltway "libertarian" crowd quite a long time ago. But he just keeps coming back to give the statists more nightmares. All this talk of purging just amounts to the beltway "libertarians" purging themselves, revealing to all the world the statist instincts they have developed after many years living amongst the paycheck vampires and glorious monuments to the power of government in the District of Columbia.

|1.14.08 @ 9:13PM|#

Steve Horwitz,

Thanks for the link.

Eric Dondero|1.15.08 @ 7:41AM|#

A new batch of newsletters just dropped at TNR. These link Paul directly to the writings. Much more hurtful to Paul than the somewhat tame first batch a week ago.