"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, 9:31am
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.
Gee | January 9, 2008, 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.
Roach | January 9, 2008, 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.
Roach | January 9, 2008, 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.
Butler T Reynolds | January 9, 2008, 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.
Sam Grove | January 9, 2008, 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'.
Roach | January 9, 2008, 6:27pm | #
I think this much can be said for the Paleolibertarians and von Mises crew: they thought logically and historically about their beliefs. They knew if you believed, say, in a noninterventionist foreign policy, you probably also ought to have a cultivate indifference to other nations' internal affairs. They knew if you believed in limited government, you probably needed decentralization, and if you needed that, then the federal government was your enemy. If you believed the federal government caused lots of problems, you probably believed in secession, saw Lincoln as an enemy, and saw his power grab as the use of slaves' rights as a Trojan Horse with which to "make slaves of free men."
The paleolibertarians may be extreme and out fo the mainstream, but they're a lot more logical and rigorous than the latest generation at Cato and Reason who only seem to get excited about dope dealers, minorities, and DC hair-braiding salons. They ignore the history of liberty, government expansion, and the false hopes of liberty in arena where equality was considered important, i.e., Revolutionary France.
At least the ACLU has the decency to defend the indecent once in a while in order to show their principled commitment to free speech. Fat chance IJ will ever defend a neo-confederate or militia type. Likewise Balko, Sanchez, Reason, and the rest of the hipster bunch. If white businessmen are being put out of business by meddlesome environmental or affirmative action mandates, they're almost totally silent. This happens when you get up in arms about "racism" and are more concerned with impressing liberals that you're not conservative than you are in defending liberty in all instances.
I'll say it again: if equality is that important to you, then liberty will predictably and naturally suffer. They're principles in inherent conflict outside of the very narrow range of equality before the law to make and enforce contracts, use the courts, by and sell property, etc.
NickM | January 9, 2008, 7:48pm | #
Argh. A longer post just disappeared into the ether, so here's a short version.
How about a few of Maxine Waters' greatest hits?
"If you don't have the courage to stand with us, to be with us," she said, "don't ever go into a room to provide a shield for a white man against a black man. Don't ever do it."
"Blacks don't hate anybody. They just don't understand how [Asian entrepreneurs] can move in and have businesses and be the owner of things they can't have."
From a National Review piece by Jay Nordlinger:
On the international front, Waters wrote a highly unusual note last September to Fidel Castro-a note of apology and explanation. She had voted for a measure calling for the extradition from Cuba of one Joanne Chesimard, who, as a member of the "Black Liberation Army," murdered a policeman in 1973. Chesimard was imprisoned, but escaped in 1979, fleeing to Castro's island, where she was granted "political asylum." Waters wrote to Castro that, in casting her vote, she had not been aware that "Joanne Chesimard was the birth name of a political activist known to most Members of the Congressional Black Caucus as Assata Shakur." The "Republican leadership," she said, had "quietly slipped this bill onto the accelerated calendar," which, she helpfully explained, "is supposed to be reserved for non-controversial legislation like naming federal buildings and post offices." As "evidence of their deceptive intent," she continued, GOP leaders "did not mention Assata Shakur, but chose to only call her Joanne Chesimard." Hence, the erring vote. She confided to Castro that the Sixties and Seventies had been "a sad and shameful chapter of our history," when "vicious and reprehensible acts were taken against" black revolutionaries, resulting in the need to "flee political persecution." Concluded Waters, "I hope that my position is clear."
. . . .
She seconded Clinton's nomination at the '92 convention, but warned, "This is the last time I support an all-white anything." From 2000 on, there had to be "minorities or women" on the ticket, "or I will not be a Democrat supporting it."
Even the hard left L.A. Weekly accused her of "playing the race card".
http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/-the-la-weeklys-endorsements/1266/
Do you really need more to convince you she's racist?
Nick
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
