Did I Give Paul a Pass?
David Weigel | January 10, 2008, 8:53am
Virginia Postrel has
some critical words for
reason's coverage of Ron Paul:
I do fault my friends at Reason, who... scornful of the earnestness that takes politics seriously, apparently didn't do their homework before embracing Paul as the latest indicator of libertarian cachet. For starters, they might have asked my old boss Bob Poole about Ron Paul; I remember a board member complaining about Paul's newsletters back in the early '90s. Besides, people as cosmopolitan as Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch should be able to detect something awry in Paul's populist appeals... I suspect they did but decided it was more useful to spin things their way than to take Paul's record and ideas seriously.
I can only speak for myself here, and I knew about the newsletters, and wrote that I did, way back in May 2007. Older, more experienced libertarians were telling me that they would be a problem for Paul. I asked Paul back then about the letters and have asked him (and the campaign) since then about support from Don Black. I wasn't ignorant of these problems and I wasn't covering them up. As Paul's campaign grew this stuff just lost importance to me. Paul disassociates himself from the newsletters (although not from all the people who wrote them) and the people running his campaign have no connection to that older, nastier iteration of his career. The campaign was growing so much larger and more interesting than the conspiratorial Paul circle of the late 80s and mid-90s.
In any case, the Paul pile-on is starting to get ridiculous. You can blame Paul and the ghostwriters for some of this, for keeping what was in the newsletters so quiet, but simply because so many of them are now out I'm seeing "damning" quotes that pad the lists without making Paul look out of line. The excitable Dan Koffler compiles some that wouldn't sound out of place, frankly, in a conservative blog or in National Review. For example:
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country.
This is something Herman Cain says once or twice every hour.
The Earth Summit is the creepiest meeting of politicos since the first gathering of Bolsheviks. Officially known as the UN Conference for Environment and Development, it will be held in Brazil in June; bad guys from all over the globe will attend.
Silly, but sounds like something John Bolton would say.
I agree with Virginia's
first response to the controversy: Libertarians have known for a while about Paul's more right-wing flashes. I was expecting a controversy like this to arise if Paul stayed in the race and made waves.
libertreee | January 10, 2008, 9:59am | #
Good for you, David! I am shocked at the shocked reactions of many of the H&R commentators! The Gays and Lesbians for Ron Paul don't give a good goddamn about them, either.
Like I have said, these comments are certainly un-PC, but are nothing more than what you heard from Rush or G Gordon Libby at the time. Pat Buchanon was AGAINST the first Gulf War. Rothbard and others felt the LP was not focused on foreign policy. They courted the right wing. Welfare was a big issue. Black on black crime was a big issue. Black preteens had committed horrible murders that were on the news.
The difference in culture between the Korean immigrants and the rioting blacks was a hot topic. A working class man was dragged from his truck and murdered in those riots. The line about the riots stopped when the welfare check arrived to me was actually quite funny in a sharp, sad way.
I am glad everyone has moved on beyond those days. We are over the MLK backlash. By the way, lest you think by my tone that I would go around saying these things, that is not true either. I despise racism. I am from NYC and LA and I don't want to proclaim MY cosmopolitan bona fides at all, no one is perfect in this regard. But, although I laughed at some of it and was put off by some of what I heard from conservatives and some libs in those days, I couldn't help but see the kernel of truth in what was said.
The NEOCONS are infiltrated into the right and left largely because they are seen as cosmopolitan. Those conservatives are different, they don't hate the jews, and so on. But, they kill, kill, kill, whomever they target for destruction. Virginia Postrel and her husband and some of the Cato crowd who proclaim their "tolerant cosmopolitan" nature have supported the wholesale unnecessary slaughter of hundreds of thousands and have helped let loose the dogs of war to what end we know not.
Dr Paul, whatever his shortcomings in the period in question, as well as the paleos at LRC have consistently been anti interventionist and anti war. Libertarians have admitted that they erred in supporting McCarthy for a while. I am sure, as Dr Paul has already, they will acknowledge their lapse into this rhetorical style was excessive and sometimes went beyond the pale. But, they were right, right, right on the horrors of war, and that is more important to me.
Sam Grove | January 10, 2008, 11:06am | #
Tempest in a Teapot. Teapot being the formal aspects of the libertarian movement.
This all helps me reaffirm my acquired view that there will be no political solution.
Libertarians (big L) are too damn political...compromising and contentious, to bring actual liberty into the world.
The dirt bomb thrown by TNR has had its desired effect.
So many reactionaries.
Explains why I lost interest in the LP. So many struggling so hard to prove that THEY have the solution. "Dammit, if only I were in charge."
Like a bunch of fucking Marxists, always self limiting by their factionalism.
Too smart to see how ineffectual they actually are.
I challenge anyone on adherence to libertarian philosophical purity, but I think Ron Paul, with all his baggage and kookiness, is much preferable to many of you.
A Giuliani supporter took a shot at the RP campaign and you all responded perfectly, predictably, as he hoped.
pause
Here's what you do. If you supported Ron Paul, remember why. If that still applies, then stick with it.
If you didn't support Ron Paul, state why, then go about your own business.
If you've decided that you can't handle the heat, shut up and get out of the kitchen. Your moaning and groaning are worth zero.
David | January 10, 2008, 11:46am | #
No one's yet mentioned the significance of this:
A linked article from Virginia Postel's blog says this about an earlier questioning of Ron Paul about the newsletters:
"In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." And under the headline "Terrorist Update," he wrote: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that
his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that
his written comments about blacks were in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.
When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything." (my emphasis)
http://www.texasmonthly.com/2001-10-01/feature7-2.php
Roach | January 10, 2008, 12:04pm | #
The paleolibertarians actually think a bit about history. They realize there are connections of federalism, government power, and therefore what one thinks of the Civil War, FDR, WWII, foreign policy based on human rights, etc. Hoppe, Rockwell, Rothbard, Nock, Babbitt, von Mises, and DeLorenzo all have a lot of intelligent things to say.
The new wave of youngsters wants to forget the various ways that the government has created a world they genuinely like living in, i.e., one with widespread education, little overt racism, clean food, multiculturally engineered population growth, and a nonexistent USSR.
Say what you will about Rockwell, but could I recommend reading him before attacking him. I don't totally agree with him or anyone I read, but he's certainly not dishonorable. His views on race don't make him so. I think some of this hyperbole exposes an ideological conflict at the heart of today's libertarianism. These folks are also socially liberal and thus obsessed with equality. But to preserve equality requires substantial restrictions on liberty. Every libertarian until recently understood this; thus, in the name of liberty, they mocked and attacked equality. Rand wrote The Virtue of Selfishness. Randolph said, "I hate equality." On balance, I think the harms to liberty are usually not worth the cost, but I think there's no reason to be dogmatic about it, and I'm glad laws like Title VII got rid of various crude forms of private discrimination.
Racism to me is like liberalism: an intellectual error, sometimes fueled and made ugly by resentment about inequality, but not the worst thing in the world. Like most extremes, it has the opposite, the counterfactual belief in equality of ability, which every day experience confirms is not true. Instead I favor legal equality, basic fairness, a certain magnamity to the poor and the dull, but at the same time I don't think cops should, for example, not use sensible profiling to find criminals, just as they profile sensibly against the young and the male sex. Affirmative action, of course, is the worst of all worlds: overt discrimination, a renunciation of excellence, and a Marxist importation of class results and class outcomes.
The new wave of libertarians are good for applying their handy-dandy slide rule formulae, but like ideological Communists, can always project their fantasies of a perfect world into the future and ignore and refuse to defend the actual results of real, historical liberty: a world more unequal and discriminatory than anything permitted under today's less-than-libertarian legal regime. What ever happened to libertarians crying "freedom of contract" and "freedom of association" in the face of nondiscrimination laws? Whatever happened to their willingness to let people starve in the name of opposing social welfare programs for the poor . . . after all these programs only reward laziness?
We're told this old world wouldn't return, the world of say 1865-1913 America, which I concede, but if libertarianism were good always and everywhere, there is no doubt this world would have continued, otherwise these laws were (and are today) totally superfluous. If this is the case, then how would libertarians feel about the very different world we'd live in today but for the statist interventions that crafted a totally different world that most of them happen to like. Would they, like 19th Century Republicans, have opposed the Freedman's Bureaus? Would they oppose disaster relief? Would they oppose public schools, public parks, homeless shelters, government-funded mental health institutions, etc.? This is libertarianism, folks, and the losers under this world are easily identified.
It seems that a bit of historical perspective and thoughtful exceptions to lock-step consistency might make libertarian views a bit more palatable. Then again, if that happened, they'd no longer be libertarian but a kind of liberty-leaning conservative pragmatism. Paul arguably did this, but he has shown bad judgment throughout his career, including indefensible conspiracy theorizing that make his expressed views on race appear positively bland. Reagan, by contrast, was a true liberty-loving conservative, who also knew that there are other important philosophical commitments besides consistency.
Brad | January 10, 2008, 1:21pm | #
Wow, you people let emotion rule your minds.
Expectation rules outcome. How come no one is asking "Que Bono" of this circumstantial evidence.
I would suggest that you people do some evaluation on the essays of Ron Paul that are verified of his own hand. Another is listen to a few of his speeches on the floor of congress.
To use only a few statements that may, or may not be, of his own volition as your entire basis of character judgment is foolery. I still have yet to see the full context of these statements.
Those who let others opinions make judgments for them are easily led.
The greater amount of character data for Ron Paul runs contrary to the alleged statements. I find it suspect that the Implied meaning of the phrases is congruent with his character.
Your future is at stake, as well as your neighbor, critical thinking is imperative.
Do Not suffer from "Brown Dog Syndrome".
If you exclude data you can arrive at any conclusion.
If you allow yourself to see only Brown Dogs, you will conclude that All Dogs Are Brown. It is your perception of reality; however, it is not true reality. In judgment cases, All Dogs Must Be Considered to reach valid conclusion.
Emotion is for guidance; rational and reason are for decision making.
Views Untested Are Worthless.
Ron Paul is a noble man, in my conclusion, based upon a greater data set.
I Vote For Virtue; I Vote For Ron Paul.
Andrew Taylor | January 10, 2008, 1:57pm | #
I don't care if this story has "legs" or "gains traction" with the "MSM" or not. The simple fact of the matter is that Ron Paul owed his many thousands of contributors and volunteers -- and that includes me -- better than his "non-response response" to this important and serious matter. He blew this off as if it was a non-issue, leaving many of his supporters holding a rancid-smelling bag with family, friends, and neighbors whom they tried to recruit to the "R3VOLUTION."
Have any of you read the posts over at Ron Paul Forums before this story broke? People with modest incomes were running up their credit cards to give the maximum $2,300 contribution. Others asked people not to give them Christmas gifts, but to contribute to Paul instead. Lawrence Lepard paid $85,000 to purchase a full-page ad in "USA Today," and then did it again with "The New York Times" and major New Hampshire newspapers. Of course, each of these persons must take personal responsibility for his or her own actions, but the fact remains is that many people have made a huge investment in Paul. And his campaign tells Reason "he doesn't want to talk about it"? The arrogance is breathtaking.
For what it's worth, I believe Paul when he says he didn't write the offensive passages. So who did? Eric Dondero says that "80%" was written by Lew Rockwell. If true, and there's no reason to believe it isn't, that proves that Rockwell is intellectually dishonest, because he attacked TNR -- the messenger -- rather than admitted his personal participation in this fiasco. In addition, it confirms the strong criticisms that others in the libertarian movement have made about Rockwell playing footsie with Klansmen, Nazis, and others on the far right fringe.
Cynicism takes over at this point. Just what is Rockwell and, by extension, Paul trying to accomplish? Apparently in the late 1980's and early 1990's they were simply trying to make money by pandering to the lowest and worst human instincts in their publication of the newsletters. That breathless and humorless solicitation letter is one of the most disgusting I've ever read, and I'm unfortunately on more than a few right-wing mailing lists. What's their goal now?
I still don't agree with Mr. Dondero on the Iraq War, and I could never vote for Rudy Giuliani, but Mr. Dondero's reputation has geometrically improved in my estimation. He finally reached the point where he could no longer ignore the many problematic issues presented by Paul and left with his integrity intact. No, I don't believe Paul is a racist. But to say that is hardly an adequate defense of him in this situation.
Roach | January 10, 2008, 2:00pm | #
Shane, your arguments are facile beyond belief. If I'm rich, and your poor, and that seems like an injustice to you, how do you propose we be made equal (not just both richer, but equal) outside of some scheme of wealth redistribution? And how does such a scheme come to pass without the state? Charity's always marginal compared to government wealth redistribution.
People are not naturally equal. They have different talents, IQs, discipline, drive, etc. That's why some end up rich and others poor. Lots of people rail against this as a great injustice, and they're always trying to get the state to undo it. This has been so since the French Revolution and that asshole Mazzini ran around saying "property is theft."
The 19th Century Liberals--as in the actual human beings--did become today's liberals. Just read the history a little bit, particularly in the UK and the baleful influence of Keyenes.
Incidentally, how were Sir Henry Maine, James Fitzjames Stephens, Bastiat, Nock, and Jefferson in favor of social equality, which I'm going to define as a commitment to nondiscrimination in dealings with others on the basis of race, sex, ancestry, wealth, religion, sexual orientation etc., and a commitment to greater material equality between all of these various social groups.
As for the Jewish sect, they were powerless for 300 years until they hopped on board the great Emperor Constantine's bandwagon, and he made the Catholic Church the official religion of the empire. Before that they were mostly dodging Roman and Jewish assassins.
formerbeltwaywonk | January 10, 2008, 6:27pm | #
How can one not think of conspiracy theories having just observed an improbably simultaneous media attack on Ron Paul the day of the New Hampshire campaign? A remarkably successful attack that made him plunge from 14% in the polls to an 8% actual vote? After weeks where we heard very little about Paul from the mass media and beltway "libertarian" bloggers? TNR from the left, Fox News and talk radio from the right, and piling on from beltway "libertarians" who made a point of loudly repeating the TNR smears and dumping Ron Paul on the day of the primary. Your eyes did not deceive you, all this happened. It is not the result of a criminal conspiracy, but if one uses "conspiracy" as a metaphor for social networks of vast complexity, there is a strong sense in which conspiracy theories accurately, if metaphorically, explain what happened.
The reality behind the conspiratorial metaphor is the social networking between denizens of the Beltway, who sport a wide variety of political labels but are, relative to the rest of the country, a monoculture. These denizens range from the journalists who report the mass media news to various think tank and university scholars at the Cato Institute, George Mason University, and so on. Vast amounts of federal money, that stuff that is taken out of your paycheck with such automatic ease, flow into the Beltway area. Directly and indirectly, almost every person who lives in or near the Beltway depends on the very income tax that Ron Paul declared he would abolish -- with no replacement!
Many of these paycheck vampires call themselves "libertarians" and inspire us with their libertarian rhetoric to support them with our attention, our blog hits, and our tuition money as well as the tax money that already funds them or their friends. But at the first sign of political incorrectness, all these below-the-Beltway "libertarians" have dumped Ron Paul like yesterday's garbage. Now they can rest easy that they will still be invited to the parties thrown by their lobbyist and government employee and contractor friends, who for a second or two got worried by all those Google searches that Ron Paul might have some influence, resulting in some of them losing their jobs (end the income tax with no replacement?! The guy is obvioiusly a kook, and we don't invite the supporters of kooks to our parties!). Now everybody around the Beltway can go back to partying at the taxpayer's expense. All the money will keep flowing in, hooray!
The lesson millions of young libertarians have now learned from our beltway "libertarians"? Libertarian electioneering is futile. Voting is futile. Democracy is futile. Anybody who actually wants liberty is a kook, as can be proven by their association with kooks. Beltway wonks posing as "libertarians" are happy to write things to inflame your hopes for liberty that they don't really mean. Then they make sure that we elect the politicians their friends want -- the ones that will enslave your future to pay for full social security for Baby Boomers. The ones that will send you off to foreign lands to kill and die. Our Beltway "libertarians" are happy to sell a whole new generation of libertarians down the tubes in order to keep their Beltway friends happy.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
