Why the Old Ron Paul Newsletters Have Nothing to Do with the "Ron Paul Revolution"
Brian Doherty | January 8, 2008, 7:16pm
I had never, as far as I recall, read any issues of Ron Paul's now-notorious newsletters, though those of us (as Jesse Walker noted below) who had any acquaintance with the general world of small-press right-populism (and Paul's appeal has always been to that crowd as well as to more true-blue libertarians) of the early 1990s aren't too shocked, however disappointed we are.
It is certainly worth remembering on this tense day for those who have admired Paul as a politician and as a voice in this campaign that, as his clear to anyone paying close attention to either his presidential campaign message (or his message through most of his congressional career) or to the concerns of the bulk of his current fans, that racial or anti-gay animus has zero to do with Ron Paul's campaign or its appeal. Any attempt to tar the "Ron Paul Revolution" with these old newsletters is wrongheaded and unfair. It is also worth remembering that every single other candidate is a fervent believer in policies that cause far more harm to far more innocent black people (the drug war) than old ghostwritten words that insult Martin Luther King, or insult rioters in racial terms, ever could.
This whole scandal is, for one thing, a sobering reminder to Paul fans exactly how little any of his opponents cared about him up until now, given that none of their opposition research brought any of this to serious public attention (and no, there is no reason to believe Kirchick was acting as anything other than an interested journalist looking for a sensational story).
Still, his campaign's reaction to this has been politically disastrous and given the third-rail nature of accusations of racism, Ron Paul's campaign was likely fatally wounded today, regardless of the final vote totals in New Hampshire. Paul would have done better to more thoroughly explain how it happened, how it was dealt with at the time, and address how he as a politician would deal with any matters involving race--ideally, a fervent defense of equality under the law for all. If the ghostwriter has any respect for Paul and hope for the political future of the anti-state, anti-war movement that has coalesced around him, he'd do well to step forward and take responsibility.
Pete Mackin | January 8, 2008, 8:58pm | #
Mr. Kurchick's "news" story was inspired by his hatred - that his fellow Log Cabin Republicans did not endorse Rudy Giuliani and that a large number of "Loggers" back Ron Paul.
There are, among the gay community, those that believe there needs to be laws to convert the Christians, boy scouts and heterosexuals to their cause by Federal enforcement. There are Ron Paul supporters in the gay community, who say they support Dr. Paul's position that you are judged by the content of your character, not the color of your skin or your sexual orientation.
Under the Constitution, groups of people have no rights (except the tribes, which have treaty rights, but that's not because they are a minority) only individuals.
Unfortunately for Mr. Kirchick, who according to his writings feels bad that it's hard for him to get a date as a gay Republican, the Federal government cannot be used to vent his frustration. It is not allowed to force us accept his beliefs as it does not force him to accept mine.
He may want the Boy Scouts to accept gay leaders, but in reality, he can always go start the gay boy scouts. And by the way, under Ron, there wouldn't be government funding of either gay or straight boy scouts.
In the end, Mr. Kirchick turns out to be the hater and the evidence of a lifetime of Dr. Paul's congressional records, speeches, numerous books and statements easily researchable by anyone, shows what a cheap shot this is by James and Tucker Carlson, who always somehow finds the "Hookers for Ron Paul", "Brothels for Ron Paul" and "Ron Paul's a Racists" stories. Facts will always trump fiction.
Mad Max | January 8, 2008, 9:14pm | #
Bottom line: Dr. Paul’s newsletters said some unpleasant and racist things about black people (seeming to suggest that non-blacks don’t have problems with welfare), as well as some things which are true but unpopular (yes, Dr. King was a plagiarizing adulterer with commie associates, but many people think it’s impolite to mention such things), plus some stuff that isn’t wrong at all (defending the free speech rights of Rushdie and Zundel despite the offensiveness of their opinions).
Sadly, the good doctor has been on the defensive. He didn’t take the obvious proactive action of putting these old newsletters on his Web site from the beginning of the campaign – he left them lying around, like undetonated grenades, until hostile people came and started pulling pins out. Then he and his supporters did the whole “don’t blame me for what’s in my own newsletter” thing. In political scandals like this, evasion compounds the offense, because it shows that the offender knew he did wrong and is trying to weasel out of it instead of facing it honestly.
What if Dr. Paul had the political skills of Bill Clinton? Recall how Clinton managed to get out of scandals with a mix of disarming contrition and aggressive counterattacks. Along such lines, here is how the good Dr. Paul could deal with the scandal.
(a) Although it’s late in the game, put the full contents of these old newsletters on his Web site. Get them out in the open. Introduce these olds newsletters with an introductory letter “To Our Supporters” – a reference to the *New Republic’s* letter “To Our Readers” after the Glass scandal broke. In his note, Dr. Paul should thank the volunteers who put out his newsletter, getting out the freedom message year after year, etc. Then add: “While most of this material is stuff I can be proud of, there are a few instances where my overzealous editors used inappropriate rhetoric. I ought to have exercised closer supervision to prevent this, and I take full responsibility.” The phrase “full responsibility” is key – remember that Janet Reno took “full responsibility” for Waco, but didn’t have to resign. At the same time, Dr. Paul might get new supporters from seeing some of the stuff on his old newsletters.
(b) Do a TV appearance or YouTube performance, like Bill and Hillary on 60 Minutes after the Flowers thing. Dr. Paul should appear with one of his African-American supporters. Dr. Paul should be contrite – “I allowed my editors to suggest that welfare dependancy is some kind of black thing, but as I have emphasized throughout my career, it’s a problem for all Americans, and all Americans should deal with it together. My editors failed to give their props to the millions of hard-working African-Americans, etc., etc., and I’m so very sorry, etc., etc.” Then the African-American supporter (in the role of bad cop to Dr. Paul’s good cop) takes the gloves off. He says, “sure, I wish Dr. Paul had supervised his editors more closely, but the fact is, there’s an attitude all too prevalent in the African-American community that government aid is the answer, and this mentality has been far more destructive of black people than any newsletter.” Then the black guy should express his indignation that the *New Republic* would suggest that criticizing sodomy is the same as attacking black people – “that’s just racist, to equate the condition of being black with the act of sodomy.” To disarm backlash from the gay community on account of this approach, have Raimondo, or some other gay libertarian, say something like: “I don’t share Dr. Paul’s conservative moral values, but the important thing is that he is not seeking to force those values on me – he isn’t trying to put me in prison for my private sex acts with other adults, or for my chemical choices, or for paying for goods in sound money. As long as this is so, why should I care what he thinks of my private behavior? The key is that he wants to keep it private.”
(c) Dr. Paul’s supporters (and maybe Dr. Paul himself) should do to the *New Republic* what the Clintons and their supporters did to Ken Starr. If a respected legal figure like Starr, with a record of personal integrity and bipartisan popularity, could be attacked until he became more unpopular than a guy who literally got caught with his pants down, then imagine what Dr. Paul’s people can do to the *New Republic.* Of course, Clinton had media allies to go after Starr, but Dr. Paul has the Internet. Remind people of the *New Republic’s* motives for this political smear job. Inundate the Internet with none-too-subtle reminders of the pot/kettle quality of the *New Republic* attacking Dr. Paul for failure to exercise proper supervision over his newsletter editors. Remind people, over and over, that TNR has a much worse record of supervising its editors and contributors. Point out that at least Dr. Paul’s newsletters never praised Stalin, nor did they run bogus stories about young conservatives chasing women after drinking from nonexistent minibars.
(d) An ad for Dr. Paul. Darth Vader’s voice comes on: “This is the spirit of Stephen Glass, former editor of the New Republic. I was so evil that they had the guy who played Darth Vader play me in the movie. [or words to that effect – I’m still working on phraseology]. My spirit is again haunting the halls of the New Republic, and on behalf of the New Republic I say: Sure, we ran fake articles in the past, including bogus smear on American soldiers, but this time you can trust us, and we say don’t vote for Ron Paul. Ron Paul’s rebellious followers are doomed to defeat because they simply do not understand the full power of the Dark Side. To the voters I say – join us! Embrace fiat money, inflation, abortion on demand, perpetual foreign wars, and the welfare state. Together, we will rule the galaxy. Remember, do not under any circumstances vote for Ron Paul.”
Or Dr. Paul could play nice and go gently into that good political night.
Larry Edelstein | January 9, 2008, 1:09am | #
Man, this is disappointing. I cannot understand why he would allow publications with his own name on them - "Ron Paul's Freedom Report", "The Ron Paul Investment Report", etc. - to print such vile trash for years on end.
There's this thing called the "editorial voice". It's a characterization of what a publication is about, who its editors are, who its audience is. It sounds to me like the editorial voice of these newsletters was that of a short-sighted, angry, unthoughtful, incurious, casually bigoted, somewhat paranoid white American male.
If there was a Larry Edelstein Political Review, I would make damn sure that its editorial voice wasn't that of, oh, say, a hand-wringing, manipulative, intellectually careless, self-hating, vaguely depressed documentary filmmaker with statist and elitist tendencies. If I did, I'd expect someone to pillory the shit out of me, eventually, and I'd expect to lose votes. I wouldn't be surprised if my fellow libertarians started calling it The Albatross Report, because they would feel it hanging around their necks, just as I sense these ridiculous Ron Paul newsletters encircling my throat right now.
Their mass will further compromise my posture the next time I try to talk libertarianism with my liberal progressive friends.
My biggest question is why Ron Paul would have let this shit bear his name. I want an answer, or I will not vote for him.
Like I said, I'm really disappointed.
Dan F | January 9, 2008, 4:00am | #
It's unbecoming to defend Dr. Paul in this. In the best version of his life, he either wasn't aware that neo-Confederate writings were being published under his name for decades -- did they leave him off the mailing list? -- or he fought hard to get his name off the newsletters, as any sane person would do, and somehow failed, and somehow reasoned that the law suits he filed or police reports he registered were never worthy of pointing out.
He looks awful today, and more people noticed than ever did before in his career, thanks to the national groundswell behind him.
A principled person could not have tolerated this for twenty years.
At that, I don't believe a principled person can accept money from Stormfront and dodge behind the appeal that it's good to see a neo-Nazi bank account become a few hundred dollars shorter. And I also firmly contend that a principled libertarian can't inject pork into a spending bill and then say he fought to end federal handouts while standing in line to collect some for supporters in his district.
And now you realize I am trying to raise a larger point. Ron Paul acts in self-interest, even at the expense of his highest principles. The very blatant expense. Campaign funds from neo-Nazis. District indulgences from the federal government. And two decades of nominally presiding over a small neo-Confederate movement: it is hard to see what personal benefit came to him from that, but it's far harder to imagine that anything other than self-indulgence might have made such an unfortunate legacy worthwhile to him.
Self-interest rises above principle, dramatically, in Ron Paul's epoch. Kirchick's trips to Kansas and Wisconsin yield some more reason to see that. And getting to the point: they allow me, I say unapologetically, to take a jab at the movement.
Does self-interest rise above principle in libertarianism?
You want to hold onto every dollar you earn. And you want to make whatever decisions benefit you in life, regardless of their social impact, unbridled.
Can that actually be called principle? Or is the rhetoric of libertarianism a fig leaf over selfishness and anti-social inclination?
It's a mix; it's impossible to separate. But it's rivetingly interesting to see what happens when a libertarian's self-interest is not aligned with his ideals -- but rather gets flung against them in high tension. When the self-interested option is distinctly not libertarian and not principled.
This is exactly what happened when Dr. Paul's campaign was offered money from a foul source and when he was faced with a chance to push pork into his district.
The same sort of fascinating thing happened to you today. You have to choose between the campaign you love and the decency and tolerance you espouse. Happy choosing.
1indistrict14 | January 9, 2008, 9:11am | #
Two years ago I received an email from Moveon.org with a call to action to write our congressmen regarding the proposed cuts by the Republican administration towards the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I was given the instructions to write Ron Paul.
I had heard the name before, but had assumed he was just another neocon as his popularity in Texas District 14 was intense. I did some quick research on him via his website and his newsletters. I also came across the Houston Chronicle article where he explained the racist newsletters. I also saw where he had libertarian leanings and thought to myself,here's a true lesson in the meaning of the word "futile" as I wrote my impassioned letter.
A few days later, I received an email from his office saying that he had voted NOT to cut the funding. I was in shock and made it a mission to delve even further into this strange guy's background and teachings.
As no one likes to read long comments and this one is probably past that point...in and attempt to be brief... my answer to anyone that reads a website called "Reason Magazine" should try to use those reasoning powers in regards to Ron Paul.
After one year of my reading everything this man wrote or said I came to the belief that he is a remarkably well-read, educated, kind and caring person that tells the hard truth when it comes to his diagnosis and prescription for this country. He is not by any means a politician in today's sense of the word.
The newsletters were written during the time he had dropped out of politics and busy birthing babies such as the late Tejano star, Selena. The ghost-writer was fired and Ron Paul took the blame for his lack of editorial diligence.
I'm an early 50's, Democrat voting, female business owner with a heart that bleeds for social equality and justice. I wrote him a year and a half ago and begged him to run for President.
As the recession in this country grows deeper in the upcoming few months and starts to effect each one of you...remember that he was the only one that sounded the alarm bell far in advance.
1indistrict14 | January 9, 2008, 9:10pm | #
I have a business and it involves the service of food. I am busy...I am tired most days because before my employees have arrived each afternoon I have put in 8 hours before them.
I found a male employee that I personally trained and he showed great strength and promise in representing me in management on the floor. After many months I let him run the show on some evenings while I attended to things like personal engagements and some much needed rest.
Many times I would notice that some customers and their wives would get up and walk out of my business in a huff. When I questioned the "valued" employee what was going on he would respond that he didn't think they were our clientele.
One day when I was sitting he came up to me and I noticed a belt buckle that was engraved with words. I was at eye level to it as the customers would be. I had seen this belt buckle on him many times and thought it was some sort of rodeo type thing. I finally read what the buckle said which was..."Insert five cents,(a small slot was on the buckle) grab handle, pull vigorously many times until your reward comes".
I was horrified as it suddenly became clear to me why those customers had gotten up and left in a huff without telling me what the problem was.
Who was responsible? I was responsible. And why? Because I let someone else represent me in my business. I had made no inspection of his attire.
But, do I condone what the words on the belt buckle said? Was he fired?
You decide.
And since that time, I do nothing, but continually beat myself up for those out there in this small town who believe that the sentiments expressed on an employee's belt buckle were with my approval. Of course, the employee was fired.... and of course did go on to bad mouth me and my business every chance he got in order to destory the business.
I understand exactly what Ron Paul faces as I have walked a mile in his shoes.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
