Rand Paul

Rand Paul Gets Testy About Jack Hunter, Minority Rights, and Will Wilkinson



Over at Yahoo! News, Chris Moody reports on the Kentucky senator snapping at repeated questioning related to his now-resigned former co-author Jack Hunter:

During an interview on National Public Radio's "On Point," reporter John Harwood asked Paul about Jack Hunter, a former social media director in Paul's Senate office whose past pro-secessionist views were detailed in a June report in the Washington Free Beacon. Paul initially answered the questions, but he interrupted the reporter when he was asked to respond to an editorial in The Economist that aimed to tie libertarian figures to "racist and nativist movements."

Jack Hunter. |||

"Don't you have anything better — don't you have something better to read than a bunch of crap from people who don't like me? That won't make for much of an interview if I have to sit through … recitation of people calling me a racist," Paul said, clearly agitated about the line of questions. "I don't accept all of that, and I don't really need to or spend the time talking about all of that. If you want to talk about issues and what I stand for, I'm happy to, but I'm not going to go through an interview reciting or respond to every yahoo in the world who wants to throw up a canard."

Paul continued: "Why don't we talk about Rand Paul and what I'm trying to do about growing the party, and then we might have an intelligent discussion?"

"Well, I am," Harwood replied. "But he is someone who wrote a book with you." (Hunter contributed to Paul's 2010 book, "The Tea Party Goes to Washington."

"Well you're not," Paul said. "You think you want to dwell on something and you want to dwell on critical articles of people who don't like me and don't support any libertarian ideals."

Elsewhere in the interview, an edited transcript of which ran in The New York Times, Paul repeated a provocative line that is sure to draw attacks from his left: "I think there is no greater defender, truly, of minority rights if you include minorities to be color of your skin or the color of your ideology than myself."

Will Wilkinson. |||

The referenced "editorial in The Economist" was actually a blog post written by self-described former libertarian and occasional Reason contributor Will Wilkinson. It's less an attack on Rand Paul than a broader claim of inherent linkage between libertarianism, right-wing populism, and "white identity politics." Sample:

[R]ight-wing populism in America has always amounted to white identity politics, which is why the only notable libertarian-leaning politicians to generate real excitement among conservative voters have risen to prominence through alliances with racist and nativist movements. Ron Paul's racist newsletters were not incidental to his later success, and it comes as little surprise that a man styling himself a "Southern Avenger" numbers among Rand Paul's top aides. This is what actually-existing right-wing libertarian populism looks like, and that's what it needs to look like if it is to remain popular, or right-wing. […]

There's a reason we see Republicans resort again and again to a fusion of racially-tinged American-nationalist Christian identity politics, empty libertarian rhetoric (an integral part of traditional white American identity), and the policy interests of high-tax-bracket voters. That's what works! Well-meaning, libertarian-leaning, small-government conservatives must find this awfully frustrating. I find it frustrating. Yet it seems to me a plain fact that there is no significant electoral faction in American politics that demands the joint reduction of government and corporate power. A subset of libertarian ideas has functioned historically with some effectiveness as a stalking horse for white identity politics, which has brought a few authentic and salutary libertarian ideas to public attention, but the integrated principled substance of the libertarian philosophy has never been very popular.

For what it's worth, I think the notion that libertarian populism requires racism "to remain popular" is almost exactly wrong. The political market for race-baiting politics has spoken, and resoundingly. Any real or perceived racialism associated with libertarianism is a ceiling, not an elevator.

As Jesse Walker pointed out last month, "Paul-watchers can expect this strand of the story to keep developing." The senator in this pre-2016 campaign season is on a GOP base-broadening mission, and constantly being on the defensive about race relations gets in the way of that project. As he told Harwood, and has been stressing for months:

If we want to grow and be a dominant national party, or even a competitive national party, we need to look like the rest of America. We need black people, brown people, white people. People with tattoos, without tattoos, with ties, without ties – we need to look and represent a broad spectrum of people from working class to business class. We don't do a good enough job on that. My goal over the next year or two is to try to broaden our appeal.

Reason on Rand Paul here.

NEXT: Johnny Manziel Got Paid to Sign Autographs, NCAA Freaks Out

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Good for Rand for standing up to the race baiting scum. And fuck Will Wilkenson.

  2. “Yet it seems to me a plain fact that there is no significant electoral faction in American politics that demands the joint reduction of government and corporate power.”

    Wilkinson is looking backward, not forward, and perhaps missing the most significant shift in American politics in the last half century: the growing independent movement based on rejection of fealty to both government and corporate power exhibited by the two major political parties.

    1. : the growing independent movement based on rejection of fealty to both government and corporate power exhibited by the two major political parties.

      I snickered, cause that’s still a looooong ways off. Just go read some comments at WaPo or HuffPo sometime.

      1. HuffPo posters are a very small percentage of the extreme statist boot licking, brain dead, elements of society.

        Most normal people are just still in the team mode trance, politically. They pick a team, sort of like you pick your favorite car company, and then go into team mode. They know every little about the candidates that they vote for and won’t bother to find out. They just vote for the team.

        Some small percentage of Murikans are now snapping out of it, mostly due to the excesses of our government, moving towards a militarized police state, constant wars, the leaks by Snowden and others.

        There’s still hope outside of a complete collapse and re-birth, a faint, dim hope, but it’s still there, for now.

    2. Yet it seems to me a plain fact that there is no significant electoral faction in American politics that demands the joint reduction of government and corporate power.

      And let’s make sure to combat any person who tries to build one!

      1. Exactly! Them folks is whacko birds and dangerous!

      2. It’s like Wilkinson is somehow…unaware that he’s part of the problem.

    3. Reduce government power and corporate power is reduced naturally.

      If there is no government to buy, there are no buyers.

  3. It’s fun to see a politician fight back against stupid questions. But this is not going to earn him the nomination let alone the presidency.

  4. For what it’s worth, I think the notion that libertarian populism requires racism “to remain popular” is almost exactly wrong.

    Damnit Matt, quit trolling us.

  5. Yet it seems to me a plain fact that there is no significant electoral faction in American politics that demands the joint reduction of government and corporate power.

    Last I looked corporate power only mattered in so far as is influenced government for welfare and unfair advantages against their competitors. So reducing government power by definition reduces “corporate power” in the ways that Libertarians should care and want to limit it.

    But I doubt Wilkerson means just power to influence government when he talks about “corporate power”. Wilkerson is just a leftist who likes to smoke pot. He thinks “corporate power” is bad in society at large and we should be limiting it, which isn’t exactly consistent with small government.

    1. So reducing government power by definition reduces “corporate power” in the ways that Libertarians should care and want to limit it.

      No, no, no! You don’t understand! The government is us! We are government! The government is the only thing stopping the corporations from enslaving the people! The problem is that the corporations and the rich control the government!

      We need to give more power to the government so it can control the corporations that control it!

      And if that results in more power to the corporations that control the government, then we need to give more power to the government so it can control the corporations that control it!

      And if that results in more power to the corporations that control the government, then we need to give more power to the government so it can control the corporations that control it!

      And if that results in more power to the corporations that control the government, then we need to give more power to the government so it can control the corporations that control it!

      Power to the people!

      1. that is fantastic. This sums it all up. Thank you!

    2. So reducing government power by definition reduces “corporate power” in the ways that Libertarians should care and want to limit it.

      I see John beat me to it.

  6. There’s a reason we see Republicans resort again and again to a fusion of racially-tinged American-nationalist Christian identity politics, empty libertarian rhetoric (an integral part of traditional white American identity), and the policy interests of high-tax-bracket voters.

    Nailed it.

    Rand Paul has his work cut out for him broadening the base.

    1. CHRISTFAG!!!


      1. Just ignore it, John.

      2. Jesus Christ but he is a full on retard isn’t he?

    2. Go fuck yourself.

    3. Is your goal to curry favor with your keepers so they give you a few more weevils per day?

      1. One must always choose the lesser of two weevils.

  7. Josephus Daniels (publisher of the Raleigh News and Observer), never apologized for the basic idea of his White Supremacy campaigns in 1898 and 1900, because he believed that as long as black people had political power they would block Progressive reforms, and that it was necessary. Indeed, some of the biggest progressives in the South were especially racist to maintain their seats during the first half of the 20th century. So one could easily argue that, in the South, progressive “required racism to maintain popular,” or at least Josephus Daniels did. Despite that, I think it would have been ridiculous to argue that this would always be true going forward– and events definitely proved otherwise, as blacks in the South now vote for progressives (in an outsized manner compared to their underlying political beliefs.)

    1. Read V.O. Keys’ classic Southern Politics in State and Nation and see that there was a reason that Democrats resorted again and again to a “fusion of racially-tinged American-nationalist Christian identity politics, empty progressive rhetoric (an integral part of traditional lower class white American identity), and the policy interests of high-tax-bracket voters.”

      And yet that didn’t make it impossible for the region to change.

  8. [R]ight-wing populism in America has always amounted to white identity politics,

    Does Wilkerson have a citation for that other than the voices in his head? Since when is wanting to lower taxes and cut the welfare roles and tell liberal elites to fuck off “white identity politics”? By that definition, isn’t liberalism “black identity politics”? It would seem to me that anything to be identity politics has to explicitly call itself by that identity. I don’t see how you could have “identity politics” that didn’t saw its identity. If it doesn’t say its identity, it is not identity politics. To think that it is is to think that certain political ideas can only be supported by certain groups. Thus when say Reagan ran on cutting welfare and cutting taxes, that was white identity politics because by definition only a white person could think that was a good idea. And that is, like most things Wilkerson thinks or writes, is really fucked up in wrong in about a million ways.

    1. Don’t you know? If you hate welfare you hate black people, and you’re a racist.

      Liberals just want whats best for them.


    2. Holy shit, you are a fucking idiot.

      1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuGtxt84wPQ


        Have you burned through your meds already shreek? That shit is a controlled substance. They won’t give you any more if you take them all the first week of the month.

      2. Care to explain what John said that was wrong?

        1. He pointed out that morons like Wilkinson and PB are racists.

        2. He pointed out that morons like Wilkinson and PB are racists.

        3. Libtards never have to explain cause it’s all based on what they feeeeeeeeeeeeeel.

    3. I agree with John. I went to the Economist piece to look for any sort of evidence Wilkinson provides for his assertion that “[R]ight-wing populism in America has always amounted to white identity politics”, but I found absolutely zero. That’s a really inflammatory assertion to make with nothing to back it up.

      1. Wilkerson is just auditioning for the role of media Paul concern troll. Since Paul is not a mainline conservative, the normal concern trolls like Brooks and Frum are not effective against him. The media needs a more Libertraian concern troll. And it is pretty clear Wilkerson is angling for that position. It is not like Wilkerson has anything else to do. He is not a particularly interesting or respected Libertarian writer. So, a gig as court Rand Paul concern troll is about as good as it gets for him.

      2. You can’t be that unaware of US history.

        From the Know Nothings to the John Birchers the right is rife with white identity politics.

        1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuGtxt84wPQ


          You do know everyone on here just laughs at you? I mean on days you take your meds and have some contact with reality.

          1. And do you know which party got black votes in Massachusetts in the 1854 election? And had a program of Catholic-baiting *and* racially-integrated schools? Of mandatory Protestant Bible-readings *and* resisting slavery? It was the Know-Nothing party. Nothing necessarily right-wing about all this, unless (which PB won’t) you classify anti-slavery as part of the libertarian heritage.

            Reality is complex and nuanced. Too bad for you, butt-ugly.

            1. The Mass. Know-Nothing party. It had different priorities in other states.

        2. Is your name Stuart?

          1. And if any of you haven’t heard the Dead Milkmen’s Stuart, you’ve got to click that link. It’s fucking hilarious.

          2. Stuart is my favorite DM song.

          3. Love me two times baby, once for tomorrow and once just cause I got AIDS.

        3. I’m aware of Southern history, especially North Carolina history. From Josephus Daniels onwards, the left was rife with white identity politics. In California, “look for the union label” was explicitly anti-Chinese, and other pro-union movements were rife with white identity politics. In the South especially, union movements were explicitly anti-black, since blacks were more likely to be lower skilled or willing to accept lower wages than whites.

          As I mentioned above, Josephus Daniels masterminded the White Supremacy campaigns of 1898 and 1900 in North Carolina, as well as black disenfranchisement, and justified them for the rest of his life on the basis that they were necessary for progressive politics to succeed, due to retrograde black political views and attachment to Republicans (who misled them.)

          A fairly analogous situation, no? And yet, certainly didn’t prove that progressives and liberalism couldn’t exist without white identity politics.

          1. And don’t forget the Davis Bacon Act. You know when FDR ensured black workers couldn’t undercut union workers for government contracts.

      3. That’s a really inflammatory assertion to make with nothing to back it up.

        Leftist truly believe that the fallacy of switching the burden of proof is a logical argument.

        “Prove it’s not white identity politics! Prove you’re not a racist! Prove it! Nyaaaa!”

        1. Leftist truly believe that the fallacy of switching the burden of proof is a logical argument.

          It’s the “when did you stop beating your wife” political strategy – they have been quite successful with it over the years.

          1. It’s why I love to quote the line about how the 21st century definition of a racist is someone who’s winning an argument with a liberal.

  9. What’s really disturbing, albeit typical, is that probably very few actually believe Paul is a racist. It’s just a tactic and nothing else.

    1. It is all they have. It is an emotional thing too. Believing Paul is a racist makes them feel better. It is not enough for these people to think someone is wrong. There must always be a moral element to it. Paul is on the other side, so he must be a racist and his motives must be bad.

      1. Because No One but Them can have Pure Motives(tm).

  10. If Rand Paul didn’t want to be accused of being a racist, he shouldn’t be libertarian. Or Republican.

    1. Or a white male. Shudder.

    2. Or hire the Southern Avenger as his braintrust.

      1. Because believing the south should secede is only due teh racism!!!11!1!!

    3. There’s a saying where I live: If no one has called you a racist, you haven’t done anything.

      1. I don’t think this charge will play anymore with anyone other than the progtards who would think it without being told. They have used it so much, most people just tune it out. The only time it ever works is when Republicans get intimidated and wimp out. Then casual observers figure it must be right or the person being accused wouldn’t be so apologetic. But if Paul stands up for himself, which he appears to be doing, it won’t have any effect.

    4. Or a dentist.

      1. I’ve had quite enough of the anti-dentitism on this board.

  11. Wilikinson, Rand Paul, a newsletter mention and RACISM?

    Reason must need to fill a quota click today.

  12. As Jesse Walker pointed out last month, “Paul-watchers can expect this strand of the story to keep developing.”

    I’m not sure ‘developing’ is the right word for every interviewer from here to 2016 asking Paul the exact same question in order to throw him off balance.

  13. You can never get too testy about Will Wilkinson.

  14. Paul needs to get at least one piece of legislation passed that has a tangible benefit for people of color.

    The minimum sentencing bill would be sufficient.

    THEN he has to go on Sharpton’s show, and when Sharpton gets testy, he has to say:

    “I’m famous because I got a bill passed that will get young black kids out of prison. You’re famous because you exploited Tawana Brawley. You don’t get to lecture me about America’s problems with race.”

    And then he has to jam that same quote down the throat of every interviewer who asks him about race again.

    The usual suspects will gasp and shout their outrage that a white person claimed to have more impact on the “experience of people of color” than a black TV host or a wise latina or whoever, but you’re better off being known as the white guy who is megalomaniacal about how much he has helped African Americans than as the friend of the Southern Avenger.

    1. That is the best suggestion I have ever read here.

      1. You did see the thread where we suggested you kill yourself, right?

        1. He’s a fictional character, so there’s a chance he will be reincarnated as a fictionkin.

          “No. I remember it. In a past life I was an idiot clown that spent my days boring an entire blog comments section. That’s why I keep a buttplug in all day.”

          1. If there is a hell, it has to be being reincarnated as a lefty sock puppet. Jesus SF, thanks for giving me nightmares for the rest of the week.

          2. So, asking for a friend here, but is erotic, Rule 42 kind fiction an option here?

            1. I mean “Rule 34”

              1. So then I served on her a request for the inspection of her documents. I insisted on a full and thorough inspection, if you catch my drift…

                Oh, wait, I thought you meant Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. My bad.

              2. Rule 35 dictates that whosoever discovers a violation of Rule 34 must create something that corrects that violation.

                But it may be that all fan-fiction is just a form of sock-puppetry to begin with.

                Soulbond (Fictive Presence)

                In some fan subcultures, soulbond describes the common experience of a writer who finds that characters can take on a life of their own, sharing a connection and communicating with the author. Non-writers also have this experience. The soulbond may be either a canon figure, or one they have created themselves — who becomes in some sense “real”.

                1. You know, it’s really not fucking fair that I have to practically drink myself to death to experience the hallucinations these people just get for free. I demand Equality of Psyches!

      2. That’s how you know it is a terrible idea.

        Instead of playing into their hands Paul should continue to do what he can to help individuals suffering from government oppression, regardless of skin tone.

    2. School choice in DC would be another good one.

    3. Nah, won’t work. If you’re an actual or honorary black, you’re allowed to complain about blacks being disproportionately jailed. But if you’re not, they’ll say, “What are you saying? That black people are criminals?!”

  15. Jack Hunter and Will Wilkinson in the same post? Fops to the left of me, hipsters to the right…

    1. Wilkerson is one of those people who just has no balls. He is smart enough to know how stupid leftism is. But at the same time he doesn’t have the courage to actually speak truth that would offend liberals or make him in anyway subject to derision. So what he does is generally puts out libertarian stuff but then sprinkles it with all sorts of PC bullshit like “right wing populism is really white identity politics” in hopes liberals will still like him.

      1. Liberty, only for white people, apparently.

        1. That is what Wilkerson is doing with the “right wing populism means white identity charge”. It is just the same old bullshit about “code words” and “dog whistles”. Anytime someone says “liberty” or “individualism” they are really saying “whites only”.

          1. Well, the Democrats non-stop efforts to convince blacks that they have to be separate from whites and that they can’t stand on their own, but are totally dependent upon a small group of white elitists politicians for their survival, seems to me to be what is really racist. But apparently most of the Murikan public do not see it that way.

      2. That’s why I kinda like Conor Friersderdorf (or whatever the hell). He strikes me as a Will Wilkinson with some actual balls.

  16. The Dems already have their plan in place, and it will work.

    They will label Rand Paul a racist, the only GOP candidate that they fear. It will work because most Americans are ill informed and not very intelligent. If the media says he’s racist, it must be true.

    This will guide the GOP towards another boring Dem Lite candidate, much in the same mold as McCain or Romney.

    Then the Dems will once again fool the public, this time making them believe that a borish old hag with the personality of a fence post, is some kind of great enlightened thinker and rock star. And *poof* President Hitlary, our worst fucking nightmare.

    There is no hope for Liberty, as far as the POTUS race goes in 2016. Maybe in 2020, but I can’t even imagine how bad things will be by then. Probably stuff that we wouldn’t even believe right now.

    The best we can hope for right now, is that in 2014, some more Libertarian candidates primary some of the worst GOP congress critters, and make their way into congress to join Paul, Amash, and Massie. That should be the electoral focus of Libertarians.

    1. The thing is that it doesn’t matter who the GOP nominee is. The Dems have to label them a racist. If black turnout ever goes back to historic levels from what it was in 2008 and 2012, the Dems can’t win. But without Obama on the ticket, record black turnout is going to be hard to produce. The only hope of producing it is convincing blacks that the Republican is a real racist.

      I am skeptical it is going to work. The Dems call every Republican a racist. Yet, that charge didn’t get blacks to come out in record numbers any time before 2008. Why would it now? The bottom line is that things are really bad for blacks economically right now. They may love having a black man President and feel obligated to support him, but that doesn’t mean they are enthusiastic to come out and vote for other Democrats.

      1. If the GOP ran this guy they’d say he’s racist.

        1. No, they’ll just say he’s an Uncle Tom. That seems to work, so no reason to stray from it.

          1. I thought they called E W Jackson a Christfag.

        2. No more hyphens!

          Can I get that on a bumper sticker?

      2. What are blacks now, 12% of the population?

        They don’t need blacks. They will have a sizeable portion of women supporting Hillary, plus most of the newly legalized Hispanic immigrants.

        Sure, this trend can be slowed, halted, and even reversed in the future, if the GOP becomes more Libertarian and stops shooting themselves in the foot, aka the stupid party. But that won’t happen before 2016.

        1. They need blacks. Obama only won by 5 million votes. Black turnout was 64% in 2012. There are 14 million registered black voters. Reduce that down to even 55% and you lose 2 million votes. That totally changes the electoral map and makes things much harder for the Democrats. When there is only a five million vote difference, two million extra votes is a big deal.

        2. If black turnout falls, then you can bet that turnout among other reliable Democratic constituencies will fall, too. It’s Republican turnout that’s been lame since 2006. The party ain’t selling what its constituents are buying.

        3. They made something as retarded as the ‘war on women’ work last year and ‘citizen of the World apologizing for Bush’ work in 2008. Whatever they have up their sleeves for 2016, you can bet it will be an affront to your intelligence and your dignity as a human being, and the worst, most depressing part, it will work.

          1. They depend entirely on low information low IQ voters for their margin. That is why things like, who the late night comics are ridiculing and what politicians are being mentioned favorably in US magazine are extremely important. It is the Kardashians world, we just live in it.

            1. There is a section of the population that Republicans can just write off for good. Those who treat politics as a form of social signification and approach the candidates that they will pull the lever for with the same mentality they apply to the brands that they buy. To them, Republicans don’t even rise to the level of Walmart where they will shop on the down low, more like K-mart, where they wont even set foot in; whereas, Democrats are Target. No matter what the Dems actually do in practice, the identity with their social status is too strong to change.

              1. The only thing is that those people generally don’t vote. They only voted the last two times because voting for a black man felt so good. That is why Hillary is their best chance in 2016. Having the first woman President will give stupid people a stupid reason to vote for Hillary.

                The problem is that the Obama coalition is just barely a majority. All the groups have to show up for it to win. You have to have the low information low IQ vote. You have to have the blacks in record numbers and the urban white Prog vote and at least 2/3rds of the Hispanic vote and you have to have the money and votes of the public employees’ unions. It is going to get harder and harder to get all of those groups together and to keep them off each other’s throat.

                For example, if Obama doesn’t come up with amnesty, the Hispanics are likely to loose faith and not show up. But if he does, blacks are unlikely to show up in record numbers again, especially with an old white woman at the top of the ticket. What happens if Booker runs and doesn’t get the nomination? Are blacks going to be interested in showing up? If you give the Greens and the urban white progs what they want, you won’t have the money to pay off the Unions. And if you can’t pay off the unions, they won’t show up.

                The whole coalition is based on identity politics and free shit. But there isn’t enough free shit to go around and you can’t embrace everyone’s identity every election.

                1. Wishful thinking is a recipe for disappointment. The fact that Republicans only have one increasingly small demographic supporting them doesn’t concern you?

                  1. Does the fact that Democrats have no solutions and no policies beyond race and class hatred and bribery concern you Tony?

                    Tony you can only rely on people hating each other so much before the people in your own coalition start hating each other. You can only pay off people at the expense of someone else. So what do you want? Union pensions or green energy? Black identity politics or Hispanic Identity politics?

                    And last I looked Whites were still a majority of the electorate. And the Democrats have made it clear they have no place in their party and no real place in the political conversation. The supply of self hating white people is starting to get low.

      3. I don’t recall any significant Democratic candidate calling anyone a racist in the last few elections. Care to explain what you’re talking about?

        Possibly as or more important to black turnout in 2012 as Obama being on the ticket was Republican minority voter suppression efforts. That was a backfire. As they continue the efforts, one should expect the backlash to grow. Eventually the time will come that demographic reality will mean the Republicans can simply not win at the national level (we may be there already), unless they continue to try to cheat. Which will of course be exposed.

        1. I don’t recall any significant Democratic candidate calling anyone a racist in the last few elections.

          You are a comedy riot Tony. I am sure you don’t. Things like Joe Biden saying Mitt Romney wanted to put black people back into chains were properly put down the memory hole.

          Unlike Shreek who is mentally ill, you are just funny Tony.

          1. He didn’t CALL him a racist. He just implied it, John.

    2. That I’ll take as a given and just accept.

      What will make me apoplectic is if that certain subset of race-obsessed liberaltarians decide to start simpering about gee golly can’t vote for the racist guy that’s the worst thing ever. It’s getting my blood pressure up already.

      1. See Willkerson, Will. That is exactly what is going to happen with some Libertarians. And the media is looking for concern trolls to do just that. Wilkerson wants that job in the worst way.

  17. Somebody should ask Wilkerson to (comprehensively, as opposed to merely stamping his feet and screeching “NUH-UUUUH!”) refute the idea that the Great Society and its embellishments have had an effect on black people which could hardly have been more pernicious than if it had been designed and implemented by Nathan Bedford Forrest.

    1. You mean Nathan Bedford Forrest the Republican?

    2. What’s that supposed Johnson quote?

  18. [R]ight-wing populism in America has always amounted to white identity politics, which is why the only notable libertarian-leaning politicians to generate real excitement among conservative voters have risen to prominence through alliances with racist and nativist movements.

    Oh look! Somebody’s trying to pull a Weigel! He’s trying to stake out a position among the “right people” by offering himself up as a former ‘tarian who has seen the error of his ways. That is likely why he is buddying up with Cass Sunstein to attack Cato.

    1. The Blinded By The Right move, an act of desperation on the chessboard of journalists career politics that often works if you are willing to sacrifice all the pieces of your integrity for a stalemate.

      Shit, that analogy might actually work.

      1. Look at Frum. Frum can’t write. He has never written anything of importance. And the Heritage Foundation figured that out and were about to fire him. And suddenly Frum had this epiphany about how great the Republican Party could be if they just kicked all of the Republicans out of it.

  19. We can play the guilt-by-association game all day. Americans (including blacks) consider blacks to be more racist than whites. Since the most racist segment of the population votes Democratic, all Democratic politicians should be considered racist. http://www.rasmussenreports.co….._hispanics

    1. And Hitler was a big fan of centralized government. He admired Abraham Lincoln. Therefore, anyone who supports a strong central government wants to kill Jews.

      That’s right. I replied to my own post. Suck it.

      1. And Godwined it on top of that.

        Bravo. I think.

    2. Most people who live in the real world understand that blacks and Hispanics can be racist as hell. White liberals like Wilkerson don’t live in the real world. They live in a fantasy world inhabited only by other white liberals and a few black and brown people brought in for show. And in that world “racism” is about them feeling superior to other whites. Black people are just incidental to the debate.

      1. No, John, blacks and hispanics can’t be racist because they don’t have institutional power like whitey does.
        /leftard grievance studies

      2. Heh, some of Wilkinson’s best friends are black.

    3. That tactic would probably work if you owned the media, like the Democrats do.

      Libertarians can only reach, at this time, in our wildest expectations, probably about 15% of the public. The rest will never even hear about our ideas, and probably a large majority of them don’t know what a Libertarian is.

      The average American, if they read or hear any news at all, get it from NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox or some other MSM source. All of them except Fox are left wing and Fox is sort of a NeoCon/SoCon blend.

      There is no major news outlet for Libertarians. This is the real issue.

      Anyway, most Americans never hear of read much news, they watch prime time sitcoms, or watch reality stuff like dancing with the stars. They are, politically wise, totally ignorant.

    4. I believe I’ve posted this before. Guess who said:

      “By a federated state we understand a league of sovereign states which band together of their own free will, on the strength of their sovereignty; ceding to the totality that share of their particular sovereign rights which makes possible and guarantees the existence of the common federation.

      1. “In practice this theoretical formulation does not apply entirely to any of the federated states existing on earth today. Least of all to the American Union, where, as far as the overwhelming part of the individual states are concerned, there can be no question of any original sovereignty, but, on the contrary, many of them were sketched into the total area of the Union in the course of time, so to speak. Hence in the individual states of the American Union we have mostly to do with smaller and larger territories, formed for technical, administrative reasons, and, often marked out with a ruler, states which previously had not and could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that had formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states. The very extensive special rights granted, or rather assigned, to the individual territories are not only in keeping with the whole character of this federation of states, but above all with the size of its area, its spatial dimensions which approach the scope of a continent. And so, as far as the states of the American Union are concerned, we cannot speak of their state sovereignty, but only of their constitutionally established and guaranteed rights, or better, perhaps, privileges.”


  20. I mean, I just want to ask Wilkinson: why is it there is no faction dedicated to reducing government and corporate power? Answer: because people like Wilkinson tear down it’s biggest advocates by smearing RACISM.

  21. the integrated principled substance of the libertarian philosophy has never been very popular.

    Particularly among Will Wilkinson.

  22. BTW, is this the first time since elected that Paul has just flat out identified himself as a libertarian?

    1. He always says, when I have heard him bring it up, that he’s a Libertarian Republican.

      1. This seemed a little less qualified, but rereading, I guess not, he just said “libertarian ideals”.

    2. No. He’s been doing it for a while now.

  23. Wilkerson, Wilkinson- whatever.

    An imbecile by any other name…

  24. “Redneck Liberal: Theodore G. Bilbo and the New Deal

    “…[customer review] Who knew there was more to Mississppi Senator Theodore Bilbo then his racist tract “Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization”? In what would certainly give liberals fits, this book proves that Bilbo was much more then a southern racist. He was, in fact, one of the biggest supporters of FDR’s New Deal in the entire country. Even when the rest of the southern Senators turned on FDR, Bilbo stayed loyal. Bilbo supported every piece of New Deal legislation except one. Not bad for a “hater”. While the book is sparse in personal detail, it makes up for it with extremely detailed accounts of the political battles Bilbo fought. He chased Huey Long out of Mississippi politics and held his own against hostile forces within his own sphere of influence. It helps to know something about 1930’s politics before you read this book. Can you tell I liked it?”


    1. It is funny to watch liberals point to things like the TVA or the WPA with pride. I always want to ask them, do you ever see any black people working in the films of those old TVA dams being built? Ever see a WPA building in a predominantly black town? The whole myth of the New Deal and the Great Depression is entirely lily white. But it never occurs to progs to wonder why.

      1. And whenever they come close to facing up the realities, they just talk about the “irony” and “complexity” of an enlightened statist being a racist at the same time. “Well, Bilbo was a racist fuck, but at the same time he was an economic collectivist, which kind of made up for it.”

        1. How about Tom Watson? After his attempt to get the Blacks and Poor Whites to ally failed he became quite the racist anti-Semite supporting segregation and reviving the KKK.

  25. My goal over the next year or two is to try to broaden our appeal.

    And that is why you must be destroyed, Mr. Paul. /MSM

  26. I think Paul’s tactic here is wise. Blow up at a few idiot liberal interviewers early on about the racist card, and he won’t have to keep doing so in every interview for the next three years.

    The thing is, the left is race-obsessed now to a degree I don’t recall ever seeing before. They’re going to use that tactic not just in a cynical way because it works, but because they see every single issue in American life through the prism of race and sex–all that white/male “privilege” bullshit. It used to be just a thing amount cloistered academics, but it’s seeped heavily into the functional left in the last few years.

    1. Yes. Maybe I am too optimistic, but I don’t think it is going to work. It is so tiresome and boring. Since Obama is black and there was such an historic nature to having the first black President, seeing everything like that didn’t get as tiresome to the public. But take Obama out of the equation and I think the public is going to get pretty bored with it pretty quickly. At some point they are going to call so many things “racist” that every non black person in America is going to do or think something that makes them racist. And when that happens, if it hasn’t already, people will just stop listening.

      1. The thing is, some candidate on the “right”–using that term to include libertarians, as the left does–is going to have to be the first to publicly call bullshit when the race-baiting tactic is used against them. Republicans to date have been unwilling to do so. It’s clear to me that the opportunity is there. Maybe Paul’s that guy, just because he has to be more willing to be bold in order to overcome the GOP establishment.

        1. Yes. And I think the country is ready to hear it. We have a lot of problems. And the country would like to see those problems addressed. When the Democrats start their usual bullshit “that is racist” debate, the GOP nominee whoever he is needs to grow a pair of balls and call bullshit on it. I really think that a large section of the country is tired of being called racists and tired of political campaigns being about bullshit racial and social issues instead of the real problems the country has. The media will go insane when someone stands up and says enough. But I think politically a damn will burst.

          It is basically McCarthyism. Dems hunt racists today like McCarthy hunted communists. And we are pretty close to having the “have you no shame” moment. It just takes someone with some courage to do it.

  27. ‘among cloistered academics’…

    Proofing is good.

  28. Jack Hunter sounds like a good name for a porn site.

  29. White racial resentment has been the most important motivator of libertarian attitudes, period. The middling (pseudo)intellectual movement that actually believes in it on principle is minor, but, notably, still almost entirely white and male.

    1. White racial resentment has been the most important motivator of libertarian attitudes, period.

      So says the wishful thinking voices in Tony’s head. Maybe when you lose the argument Tony you should reconsider your position rather than just assuming the people who beat you are just bad people.

    2. So self identified libertarians skew white and male, therefore they are racist? Got it.

    3. Fuck you Tony.

  30. Comsos vs Yokels.

    Woooohooooo ! Git-R-Done !

    1. Rand Paul is supposed to be the great uniter of Cosmos and Yokels. And sure enough Cosmo douchebag Wilkerson is already turning on him.

      1. It’d be great if Rand Paul really is the guy who gets to deliver the “have you no decency” moment. We are way past due.

  31. “Racist – Someone who is winning an argument with a liberal” (Ann Coulter)

  32. Unfortunately for Rand, this is just the beginning. Especially now that every other left-tard “journalist” knows that they can get under his skin, they’ll be like sharks with blood in the water. I think we can pretty safely declare Rand’s presidential candidacy dead already. Like I said, this is just the beginning and it’s only going to get worse. By the timethe campaign actually starts the narrative will have been built that Rand Paul is a racist-ass cracker who wants to “put y’all back in chains” as Joe Biden would say. And just wait until the “Rethuglican War on Womynz” crap starts back up again.

  33. I have to agree somewhat with Will, as much as it pains me. There is a huge streak of nativism and crypto-racism running through the libertarian movement, but no one inside the movement seems able to see it. Oh the movement looks good on paper but off of the paper it stinks. A big tent movement is good, but it shouldn’t be so wide that it’s accepting of every form of bigotry known to man.

    This goes back to the whole paleo-vs-cosmo thing. The “cosmotarian” label came about because Virginia Postrel opined that Ron Paul wasn’t cosmopolitan enough. Over the past few years I’ve come to realize that she’s right. Cosmopolitanism is about seeing people OUTSIDE your community as deserving exactly the same rights as you. Even if they are on welfare. Even if they live in Mexico. Even if they live in Iraq.

    1. whuh?

      Ron Paul didn’t think that people outside his community deserve the same rights as people inside his community?

      1. He wanted to build a wall around America to keep people out. His only television ad in 2008 highlighted the scourge of brown people from south of the border. He wanted to abolish free trade agreements rather than making them freer. His Ron Paul Curriculum thing is being run by a Dominionist. All of these point to a world view where some people are more deserving of unalienable rights than others.

        1. Ron Paul wanted to get rid of FTAs because he didn’t like the terms set in them as they are mostly about serving special interests and not about free trade. He still wanted free and open trade. I don’t agree with Paul on all his immigration beliefs, but he didn’t want to build a wall around the country, he just wanted to secure the borders and end illegal immigration.

          1. Getting rid of NAFTA means going back to what was in place before NAFTA: tariffs, closed borders, managed trade. NAFTA was a small step forward, we need to make more steps forward rather than retreating back into the cave. Ron Paul did not offer any liberalizations to NAFTA, he did not offer any replacements to NAFTA, instead he wanted to get rid of it and go back to what we had before.

            I am positive that Ron Paul is a true free trade and open borders guy. But he sure as hell did a lot of pandering to the nativists and protectionists. He’s still practicing Rothbard’s disastrous fusionist strategy.

    2. I don’t think there is at all. And few people bash the confederate apologists more than I do. The confederate apologists are not racists. They are just biased and blind to the South’s faults. The bias is against the North not blacks.

      People like Wilkerson think right wing populism is white identity because they don’t understand the “racism” debate in the white community. As I said above, Racism is just a charge asshole white elites throw at non elite whites to make themselves feel superior. The whole thing is a fight amongst white people. Black people are just props and when they do come around they just take advantage of the split.

      As a result, right wing populism has generally been seen as a rejection of white elites. Since white elites use the charge of racism as their primary weapon against non elite whites, they assume any movement that involves or appeals to non elite whites must be racist. No Will, those populist movements are not rejecting black people. They are rejecting douchebags like you.

      1. An interesting illustration of that is the media reaction to the Eagles player that recently dropped the n-bomb and was caught on cell video doing it.

        A ton of black teammates came out and said “I know Riley Cooper and I know he’s a better man than what you see on that tape” etc. etc. Guys like Deion Sanders on NFL Network is saying, “cmon man, we gotta move past it, hell we gotta stop saying it to eachother.” And NFL Network even had a black sociology professor from Berkeley (probably inclined towards progressivism I’d imagine, if not outright communism/liberation theology) and he said something along the lines of we gotta stop getting offended at every goddamned thing. Outside of Lesean McCoy, there really hasn’t been much in the way of black folk saying they can’t trust or respect the guy anymore.

        But you listen to the white guys on NFL Network, ESPN, or in the NFL/Philly Eagles talk about it and you’d think Riley Cooper oughtta be next to Hernandez in a cell. I’m just waiting for the one white guy to stand up and say “Dude, it’s a fucking word and you’re a goddamned athlete who hits and gets hit all day. Grow a pair, stop being a pussy, and move the fuck on”

        Apparently, I need a job as a media personality.

        1. Good point.

    3. Yeah I know you’re going to say there’s no such thing as a racist and nativist libertarian, but that’s only because you’re on the inside and can’t see it.

      1. I don’t think anyone would say there’s no such thing as a racist libertarian, but just because some exist, it doesn’t make the ideas wrong. That’s the dumbest kind of tu quoque fallacy. There are plenty of racists in all ideologies. What’s the alternative, support an ideology that forces people to not be racist? Tell people they can’t hold the same ideas as us because they’re different?

        1. The difference is that we accept the racism in our midst. Sometimes we even point to it with pride as an example of how tolerant we are.

          Ron Paul should have thrown the money back in Don Black’s face. He should have apologized for his newsletters. He should have outed the racist puke who wrote them. Jack Hunter should have apologized for his Southern Avenger antics BEFORE rather than AFTER he was called out on it. LvMI should have kicked Hans Herman-Hoppe off its board years ago.

  34. So fucking predictable. Link any movement to “racism” and you can shout it down. “White identity politics” is a meaningless term but, when applied, it means you can ignore the political feelings of millions of Americans. And it seems to me the only reason you link these people together is that they collectively hate you.

  35. Planned parenthood has its roots in racism, the minimum wage has its roots in racism, Unions have a long racist history, zoning laws have a long racist history, hell the symbol of the democrat party, the donkey, is taken from the KKK.

    Why doesn’t Will take a look at that rather then humping a small segment of the libertarian movement that only existed for like a week in the late 70s.

    1. Don’t forget making marijuana illegal had its roots in racism as well.

  36. I look at the Jack Hunter pic, and all I can think about is Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg.

    I look at the Wilkinson pic, and all I can think about is how punchable that face looks.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.