December 25, 2011
Now that Ron Paul has been leading in the polls in Iowa and his numbers rising in New Hampshire, it is time for the neocons and others, in their frantic desperation to demonize anyone who opposes the Washington Establishment, to bring back the “racist newsletter” story again. This is despite the fact that they — or at least most of them — know that Dr. Paul did not write those newsletters. What hypocrites, given that especially those radio “conservatives” constantly criticize Obama and Holder for using the “race card” when unable to defend their policies.
Some writers, such as Conor Friedersdorf, have noted that Paul didn’t explain himself on that very well in 2007 during the 2007-08 campaign. My guess is that Ron Paul was just embarrassed that such writings got published under his name without his approval or knowledge (implying that he was “out of the loop,” to quote a former Vice-President).
Paul has said repeatedly that he didn’t write those newsletters. For those who are familiar with Paul’s writings and speeches, it is just unbelievable that he would write those things. Conor Friedersdorf wrote recently,
Do I think that Paul wrote the offending newsletters? I do not. Their style and racially bigoted philosophy is so starkly different from anything he has publicly espoused during his long career in public life — and he is so forthright and uncensored in his pronouncements, even when they depart from mainstream or politically correct opinion — that I’d wager substantially against his authorship if Las Vegas took such bets….
Since I first learned about the controversial newsletters in 2008, I’ve listened closely to see if I could hear any racist dog whistles in Paul’s speeches. I never have. As far as I can tell, that ugly part of American politics is entirely absent from his presidential campaigns, comparing favorably even to … statements made by the (other GOP) candidates, the ugliest sentiments are remarks Rick Santorum and Rick Perry have made about gay people, and that Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, and Michele Bachmann have made about Muslims.
And in this long and thorough, and somewhat well-written 2007 New York Times article on Ron Paul, the writer notes that “(Paul) later explained that he had not written the passages himself — quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own.”
Jamie Kirchick wonders why libertarians “don’t care” about the newsletters. I don’t think it’s right to say they don’t care. Their view is that the offending sentences, of which there are far fewer than critics are intimating, sound absolutely nothing like Ron Paul (can anyone seriously dispute that?), and they are convinced, with good reason, that the kindly man they see in the debates, in interviews and in person is who he really is.
They also believe that our political class is full of people — we may justly call them sociopaths — whose words may always be exquisitely correct, never once straying from proper p.c. decorum, but who think absolutely nothing of (say) bombing foreign populations on the most ludicrous and transparent grounds. Our society banishes those who make insensitive remarks, but considers our knee-jerk bombardiers to be people with a legitimate point of view, and certainly as having done nothing that might end a person’s career.
To call this a skewed moral calculus is about the least one might say about it…
Our country’s political class is full of people who believed it morally acceptable, after 1991, to deprive the Iraqi population of baby food, blood-analysis equipment for children’s hospitals, heaters, syringes, ambulance equipment, insecticide, children’s clothes, school notebooks, bicycles, etc. (I’ll leave aside the so-called conservatives who for some reason think it must be “liberal” to find something wrong with this.)
Now the people responsible for so inhumane and indefensible a policy will utter every p.c. platitude in the world. Every word will be exquisitely proper. Our society thus considers them to be citizens in good standing…
Prof. Woods then links to Justin Raimondo on the newsletters, a Raimondo follow-up, and Ron Paul newsletter FAQ, And Woods posts this video of Paul explaining the drug laws — that he wants to repeal — that very disproportionately affect black Americans much more than those of other races and ethnicity, regardless of actual commissions of crimes and the very small proportion of black Americans compared to the general population.
You see, a lot of people are frightened by those who go against the Establishment and who question and challenge the rulers’ policies. The pro-Establishment statists can’t stand to see someone who believes in individual liberty, property rights, civil liberties and non-interventionist foreign policy being taken seriously and possibly elected by the people. And God forbid someone would openly tell the truth that there is cause and effect associated with a foreign policy that involves trespassing on foreign lands with military bases, invasions and occupations, and someone who dares to recognize that those foreigners don’t like their fellow people getting murdered by U.S. bombs, bullets and sanctions and understandably would want to retaliate.
One such angry, authoritarian “Never Question the Regime’s Aggressions” is WSJ editorialist Dorothy Rabinowitz, who referred to Ron Paul as a “propagandist for our enemies,” and implied that his criticisms of U.S. government foreign policy could be treasonous. From her immature rant, it seems that Dorothy Rabinowitz might have sided with the British during the American Revolution. In my opinion, the real traitors are those in the U.S. government who have made Americans more vulnerable to retaliation from decades and decades of U.S. government aggressions and intrusions on foreign lands, occupations and murders of foreigners. And now the U.S. government wants to codify into law a policy of turning the military against their own fellow Americans — you can’t get too much more treasonous than that.
However, it is entirely possible that the WSJ hatchet job may have been written by Dorothy’s assistant, Toto, sans her approval. (Toto the newshound.)
But if you really want to know how Ron Paul thinks, and need better proof that he is not a racist, then you can view these many, many articles he has written and speeches he has given (the right column). One of my favorites is this one on paper money and tyranny, which explains why central banking and money printing is bad for freedom as well as for prosperity. Also worth reading is this one, The End of Dollar Hegemony.
You can also read Ron Paul’s many books.
Here are some of Ron Paul’s books that are available for free online:
A Foreign Policy of Freedom [.pdf]
The Case for Gold [.pdf]
Gold, Peace, and Prosperity [.pdf]
And there are these more recent books:
Liberty Defined (Intro, with links to buy book)
Here is an interview Ron Paul did with the Charleston City Paper‘s Jack Hunter when the Republican Jewish Coalition banned him from their debate.
And finally, I want to repost this C-Span interview of Ron Paul, which I thought was one of his best, in which he was actually given time to respond to questions and fully state his positions on the issues, mainly dealing with economic and monetary policy. The host is Susan Swain and the panel includes the WSJ‘s
Helen Sudeep Reddy and Robin Harding of the Financial Times.