So, it was with considerable dismay that I read the latest troubling revelations concerning presidential candidate Ron Paul, a libertarian-leaning Republican. Earlier on this site, while indicating some differences I have with Paul, I generally noted that the popularity of his campaign was a welcome sign that libertarian ideas were taking a foothold in this country.
The other day, I was alerted to a very well-done (albeit troubling) article in Reason magazine that detailed a slew of bigoted rhetoric that appeared in Paul's newsletters during the 80's and 90's. And this isn't just "crying racism," as in the recent flap between Clinton and Obama over the legacy of Martin Luther King. This is vile stuff, including claims that King "seduced underage girls and boys," that black protesters should gather "at a food stamp bureau or a crack house" rather than the Statue of Liberty, and that AIDs sufferers "enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
Even worse than the substance is the notion that the bashing of gays and blacks was part of a conscious political strategy among confidantes of Paul to form a coalition with people holding "older conservative values." One essay outlining the strategy called it -- and I'm not making this up -- "Outreach to Rednecks."
This is wrong on so many levels that it's hard to know where to start. In addition to the obvious bigotry and bile inherent in such comments, there's the fact that they feed into people's worst misconceptions about libertarians, namely that we're a bunch of wingnuts who don't care about the poor and whose opposition to state interference is really just nothing more than a thinly-veiled racism. Finally, if you agree that the two-party system has been compromised by relentless pandering (elements of the Republican Party being beholden to Christian mullahs, for instance, or the obeisance of many Democrats to the teacher's unions), libertarians lose moral authority when they make such naked political comprises to achieve power.
Paul has distanced himself from the controversy, calling it "old news" and saying that discussion of the newsletters' content were "hysterical smears aimed at political enemies."
I'm sorry, that doesn't cut it. Reason put it best:
Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists -- and taking "moral responsibility" for that now means more than just uttering the phrase. It means openly grappling with his own past -- acknowledging who said what, and why. Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life.
6 comments:
If he wasn't so "fringy" in the 1st place I would be more concerned with the racist BS. I just wish there was a more pragmatic Libertarian. Maybe it makes me a selout, but I wish there was a libertarian that wouldn't thump the pulpit to destroy social security, welfare and the federal reserve. People don't want to be babysat by the government until they hear that their government cheese is being taken away. I think some sort of moderate or conciliatory libertarian could be very electable as cutting pork and increasing personal freedoms is something a lot of us want.
Hey, Brian! Good to know that Jim Patterson isn't the only person reading this blog. No offense, of course, Jim.
I don't really care about this issue in terms of Paul's candidacy. It's not like he's a tremendously inspiring figure. But he's more than fringe in this race. He set a record for single-day fundraising in a presidential campaign and came in second in Nevada.
Given how willing most people are to dismiss ideas/candidates that fall out of the two-party mold, I just worry that this sort of thing tarnishes a philosophy that is already a hard-sell and will turn people off at a time when there is a historic opportunity for libertarianism to make some inroads into the mainstream.
I hear what you're saying- but I guess I learned my lesson 4 years ago with Howard Dean and the supposed power of the internet and youth- it hasn't matured enough (forgive the pun) to make a big enough of an impact. I just think that libertarian ideals stand a better chance of being integrated instead of overtaking current politics by storm.
Or maybe I just like to complain without offering better ideas?
I'm mildly dismayed that I lost my status as Mr. Odney's only reader, but I'll live.
Whether he's a fringe candidate or a meaningful sign of the desire for alternatives to the perpetual Democrat/Republican damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't
proposition that this country is currently stuck with, it's a travesty to see a so-called libertarian effectively disowning the core libertarian belief that all individuals are of equal worth. I thought I liked at least some of the ideas I've heard him espouse, but if he's capable of invoking a libertarian pedigree when in fact he apparently sees society in terms of unequal groups rather than equal individuals, it's hard to believe he really stands behind any of the nobler sentiments he's expressed.
Re: An "electable" libertarian, yeah, you'd think somebody who promised to cut wasteful spending and roll back government interference in peoples' private lives would be a can't-miss. But the lessons of the last five years or so have been that ladling out pork wins votes and most people don't see anything intrinsically wrong with Big Brother. It's very sad.
Dr. Paul really excites me. Really, if you look at most of the info available about the racist comments of the past newsletters, you would see that they were written by ghost writers such as Rockwell. (see post above) I guess it is possible that these ideals passed through Paul with approval, however his rhetoric for the last 10 years defies this. Regardless, there are verifiable TONS of dirt to dig up on all the candidates for the last 4-8 elections, is that basically "In a newsletter with his name on it, 15 years ago someone wrote some racial comments" but the best anyone can dig up on Paul? Please. For as long as I have been voting, I feel as if I have been voting for the "less evil" of the available candidates. This country needs an enema. As much as it will hurt, it will be integral to our long-term survival. I am prepared to go without certain goverment services and handouts to ensure our country survives as a superpower on the world stage. I do not agree with 100% of everything Ron Paul says, but it is a hell of a lot better than the 50% or less I did agree about with forer politicians.
Post a Comment