Update III: Well, the story did break big today (1/10): CNN carried it. Wolf Blitzer had Ron Paul on The Situation Room, and overall, Paul’s response was strong and good and confirmed the reasons I was convinced early on that he was not a racist - repealing the drug laws which are applied primarily to black men and issuing pardons for all non-violent drug offenders is not the policy of a racist man. There’s a lot still to say about this and about Paul overall, but I’m going to wait another couple of days and then do a massive summary/analysis post, not only on this racism issue, but on Paul’s candidacy as a whole.
Update II: I’ve done a lot of research today. I’m not comfortable sharing any of it yet, because I don’t want to write anything but the clear truth on the matter. There’s a chance a few stories are going to break tomorrow morning, but if my research is accurate, you won’t want to take them as gospel truth. There will be a mix of truth and error. If the story does break, it will force Paul’s hand, and there will have to be a more specific response, at which point, the whole campaign - even a third party run - will likely implode. This newsletter thing was never going to let Paul survive a presidential run.
Update: This post at Reason is worth a read, as well as the posts it links to. This campaign is over. Paul allowed himself to be linked to and used by too many people with insidious agendas, and he’ll pay the price for it. He should have been more careful. This is a sad, sad day. Important conversations for our country will be silenced because of this.
I’ve spent a lot of time and energy over the last month or so researching and writing about Ron Paul and the issues he’s representing in this election. The ironic thing is, when I began this whole process, I mentioned that the only thing I was hesitant on when it came to Ron Paul was race - not because I had heard of the infamous newsletters yet, but because, as far as the analysis of the problem of racism goes, I lean more towards the Critical Race Theorists, believing that a “color blind” approach (like Paul’s individualism) tends to obscure the issue and not let us actually talk about it, rather than eliminating racism. But that’s the great thing about voting for a Libertarian-Constitutionalist candidate; he’ll mind his business in Washington, and let us handle issues as we see fit at the local level. So I don’t have to agree with him on everything.
The newsletter issue is very odd. I dug around for a while yesterday and more this morning, have even been contacted by a former 1988 Ron Paul candidacy staff member, and have run into nothing but contradicting reports. Let me say this much: if I do get incontrovertible proof that Paul wrote those racist remarks, I’ll apologize publicly here at restless reformer and also at the Boar’s Head Tavern for having supported the man and having attempted to encourage others to do the same.
It still doesn’t fit. Here’s a man who has praised Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Muhammed Ali; has explained on the campaign trail that his foreign policy would actually benefit Israel; has argued in favor of the end of the War on Drugs, one of the reasons being that it ends up being enforced disproportionately on blacks (not only that, but he’d issue federal pardons, effectively freeing a huge number of black men from jail; that’s racist?); has even suggested a black running mate (Walter Williams), should he win. I’ve read lengthy summaries of evidence for his being, not just against racism, but far and away the best candidate for people of minority groups.
The whole thing is a mystery to me, and I have so many other things to do right now, I’m going to take a few steps back, stop blogging about Ron Paul, and should I come to any solid conclusions, I’ll get back to you. As I argued last night, Paul’s bid for the Republican nomination is over; New Hampshire needed to prove that he actually did have more support than the polls were showing, and it proved no such thing.
Later today, I’ll cross-post my review of Past Watchful Dragons (from over at SoG), and then I’ll move on to some biblical and theological blogging. I’m considering doing some thinking and writing on Evil from N.T. Wright’s perspective, which will allow me to think more about the way evil is handled internationally (Iraq war, and such) without getting myself too entrenched in more political battles.
Politics. It’s like a drug, and I need some rehab. Slow withdrawal, I guess.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Pauli 01.09.08 at 10:37 am
Travis, I met Ron Paul in Grove City, PA in 1988 and voted for him on the Libertarian ticket the same year. In some ways it would be hard for me to believe this stuff too if I hadn’t studied what the Murray Rothbard wing is into. Here’s a place to start. Paul reportedly has a portrait of Rothbard in his office.
Travis Prinzi 01.09.08 at 10:44 am
Pauli…strange. Paul’s against abortion, no?
If this all turns out to be true, Paul’s not just another typical, hypocritical politician…it would make him a most insidious character.
Pauli 01.09.08 at 11:52 am
Well, maybe, or just another deeply flawed human being who saw a way to make some money. And I’d argue that he was a man who *did* do many good things. He really is pro-life as far as I know. But a totally unserious candidate. Posing for a photo-op with Don Black — a serious person doesn’t do that “by accident”, let alone a presidential candidate.
When I was a libertarian we always discussed the 2 branches: Classical Liberal and Anarcho-Capitalist. Rothbard was the latter, Thomas Jefferson the former; all the founding fathers were CL. I was always wary of the AC branch — that’s where you run into the real nuts — Ayn Rand Objectivist folks and so forth. Some of these people were just basically hippies saw a capitalist free-for-all as fitting in with the rest of their orgiastic life-style.
I was surprised to find out that RP was into Rothbard, and actually that isn’t 100% certain, but it really looks like it esp. on the secessionist-type stuff. MR was really into that. He read the entire cosmos in terms of free market economics — it was his “narrative”.
Travis Prinzi 01.09.08 at 12:17 pm
Deeply flawed, sure. I’m not guessing this whole thing was about money.
In this interview, Paul deliberately aligns himself with the Classical Liberal position.
Justin 01.10.08 at 12:21 am
I’ll assume the best about Dr. Paul for now about these allegations. My problem is the stuff that we already knew, namely some of his more conspiratorial beliefs (Trilateral Commission theories, the North American Union talk on his campaign website) seemed to suggest he’s prone to some rather odd beliefs about who was out to get us. Add to that the far more problematic issues of associating with Alex Jones, Aaron Russo and others with views of government that tend to be closer to Kent Hovind (like the “IRS is Illegal/Income Taxes are not enforceable” beliefs of the latter) than traditional libertarians.
Personally, I don’t think important conversations will be silenced because of this. They were already happening and will continue to happen without this man — if the ugliest parts of this story are true or not. My frustration was that any important conversations with Ron Paul in the mix were usually drown out by the mob/cult mentality on the Internet that thought that “Don’t Believe neocon Faux Noise! Ron Paul 08!” constituted intelligent conversation and that spamming online polls would convince people there was a massive groundswell of support for a previously unheard of candidate.
Travis Prinzi 01.10.08 at 12:31 am
Justin, good points, all. I’m not as freaked out by his NAFTA Superhighway talk, and the like, as some are…I mean, there is something to be said for the fact that, should a North American Union be in our future (and who would debate there are those who would want to see it?), that it wouldn’t suddenly be proposed and happen overnight. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, either, but talk of some sort of union, given the direction much of the world is headed in, will probably eventually get louder.
But you’re definitely correct that association with Jones and others is a big problem, even if only for perception. The fact that Paul has repudiated “9/11 truth” theories over and over isn’t as powerful as the public image of Paul’s association with Jones. This newsletter thing is going to be similar, I think; looks to me as though he associated with the wrong people, and then didn’t disassociate himself when he should have.
Agreed also on the tenor of cult-support for Paul in internet forums and blog comments sections. I’m glad they haven’t found me yet. I want to have intelligent conversation, and some of what has gone on in the name of Paul has been really ugly. Once again, Paul’s campaign is not being forceful enough and repudiating this sort of thing; I guess they’d be hesitant to do so, given how badly they need to maintain support.
You’re right that the conversations won’t be silenced - I just wanted them to maintain a place in the spotlight, and it looked like Paul was the guy with integrity who would make that happen. This whole thing, whatever the truth turns out to be, will harm that, I think.
Patrick Kyle 01.10.08 at 12:48 am
Ron Paul has had impeccable credentials and lived a public life for over 20 years. Honestly, this news letter thing seems to be kind of a reach. If this stuff was true it would have manifested in other detectable ways in the interim, and there would be more evidence of such beliefs. Take a microscope and go back 20 or 30 years on any of the candidates, and see if you don’t find things just as bad or worse. If all they have is some news letters from 20 years ago, of questionable authorship, I don’t think that dog is really going to hunt. I’m sure the MSM and the other candidates will try to maximize this s#%* and do damage to his campaign. Whatever happens, this man’s platform has represented me more accurately and faithfully than any other politician ever has. His poor showing in the polls just goes to show how far gone things really are with respect to small government and freedom. The other night in the debate,every time RP spoke the other candidates rolled their eyes and made faces. None of them will ever receive the support of my family and friends for any of their candidacies or terms in office. I am putting things in place now to ensure they receive very little if any benefit from my taxes. They don’t represent me or many of the people I know. To quote an anonymous theologian- F#$%& ‘em.
Justin 01.10.08 at 5:26 am
To be quite honest, I don’t think the other candidates will worry much about this scandal - they’re too busy going after Huckabee, Romney, McCain or possibly Guliani too think about someone consistently in 5th or 6th place. It’s been to Paul’s advantage to fly under the radar for this long - were he a top contender this stuff would have hit the fan much sooner. It’d also be front page on the NYT, not on Instapundit or Kos.
As for “North American Union” talk, it’s one thing to think someone with power wants this, it’s another to make it a campaign platform on par with Education and Social Security. Add to this the fact that the Bush Administration is accused of “jingoism” and “nationalism,” I would think the theory that Bush or any top-tier candidate is going to give up on the US in favor of a one-nation Northern Hemisphere is, to be nice, silly.
I listened to this stuff for years on American Shortwave (where I first heard Alex Jones years ago, and cannot believe a serious Presidential Candidate would associate with him, much less make regular appearances on his show), and it was just as implausible 15 years ago as it is now. Again, I’ll assume the best about Dr. Paul on this whole mess, but at the very least it shows a stunning lack of discernment and judgment.