OK, I was going to ignore the latest round of recycling Ron Paul’s alleged racism (this all came up and was thoroughly discussed in the last election cycle), but this time there’s a new twist. Whether Ron Paul is in fact racist, homophobic, or anti-Israel, what galls me as a longtime libertarian is to see everything about Ron Paul being attributed to libertarians generally.
This sort of “analysis” is typical:
…Paulbots have been out on force at any blog that mentions them** to try and argue that the sky is green and thus Ron Paul and the Libertarian movement aren’t really racists.
Which of course “they” are, simply because Ron Paul “is.”
Sorry, but that won’t cut it. First, Ron Paul denies being a racist and a longtime staffer says he isn’t. And no matter what he thinks, the logic is appalling. It’s like claiming that if Rick Perry supports sodomy laws, and he’s a Republican, therefore all Republicans support sodomy laws (including yours truly). Libertarians being a minority, it is easy to paint them as kooks, but to say they all think alike is a huge mistake. In that respect, libertarians are like that old joke about how if you put three Jews in a room you’ll get five arguments. (I don’t know whether that’s anti-Semitic, but a Jewish friend told it to me, and I think it applies to libertarians.)
Anyway, I’ve been a libertarian for a long time and this reductio ad Ron Paul stinks so much that I thought it deserved a post.
After all, I was already roused enough to leave a comment at Ann Althouse’s blog, so the least I could do is say something here even though I am entertaining guests and out of time.
Comments
24 responses to “Revulsion over Ron Paul Reductionism”
Ayn Rand’s former attorney, Henry Holzer, is after Paul over the racist crap in those old newsletters.
http://henrymarkholzer.blogspot.com/2011/12/unasked-but-easily-answered-question.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HenryMarkHolzer+%28Henry+Mark+Holzer%29
He says that the single author is one man who if named will, I assure you, have reverberations far beyond the current election campaign. My guess is Murry Rothbard who died in 1995. The racist remarks in the newsletters ended with his death. Paul was an acolyte of Rothbard.
According to Lew Rockwell, Rothbard is considered the “dean of the Austrian School of economics, the founder of libertarianism, and an exemplar of the Old Right”.
It wouldn’t look very good, Eric, if the “founder of libertarianism” was a racist. How do you disassociate yourself from a man who wrote the bible of Austrian economics, Man, Economy, and State, and who was such an influence in the Libertarian Party, without hurting libertarianism?
I think what I think, not necessarily everything that Ayn Rand or Murray Rothbard thinks. I like Thomas Jefferson, but I don’t endorse his views on everything.
I do not know anything about Paul’s private views, but his openly stated opinions about foreign affairs (the need for alliances, Israel v Palestine, Iran’s nuclear program, America’s guilt and imperialism, etc) are dangerously delusional, and they disqualify him for public office.
Libertarians who try to justify Paul’s insanity only discredit libertarianism. And if they themselves become smeared with various allegations regarding Paul’s racism, homophobia or anti-Semitism, they deserve it.
I don’t think Ron Paul is a racist. I think he is a good candidate and I support him in his campaign. I don’t know if I will vote for him but I like him. Please visit my blog http://www.sergiopolitics.org and let me know what you think. Thanks.
Personally, I think Ron Paul is a raving lunatic, and his followers – the Paulbots – are right up there with him. However, I don’t apply that brush to Libertarians in general. I like many, though not all, of their opinions.
[…] the drug war means agreeing with Ron Paul, which means being a racist, a homophobe, and an anti-Israel […]
Former Lurker –
So, precisely what, in your eyes, makes Paul a “raving lunatic” – along with the obviously derogatory term “Paulbots” you apply to those who favor the man – over the other pretenders for the throne?
Of course, over against the other nominees and the Bammster, why, of course, Paul and his followers look grossly out of touch with what is.
The problem is, “what is” is grossly out of touch with both the Constitution and our forefathers, the multiple wars NOT declared by Congress since and including Korea, the naked aggression and imperialism that presumes the right to invade whoever, or have our UN or NATO proxies do so for us. Or is it the “non-entangling” alliances into which we were not supposed to engage ourselves, that now engulf our military and our economy?
Of course you will consign me to the same ad hominem heap you do anyone who disagrees with you, and insist the rest of us adhere to some social compact noe of us signed. whose European founder(s) could not persuade their own countries to follow.
You persuade me mightly . . . 🙂
none . . . mightily – sorry
Ron Paul isn’t a raving lunatic. He’s a man wedded to an ideology. It’s called anarcho-libertarianism. It’s where the left and right meet in a mutual hatred for government, even though Paul says he’s in favor of limited government.
The best example is his automatic reflex after 9/11. He was looking for a “false flag” reason. He even forbade his staff to make any remarks of condolence for the victims. His stock answer is that our foreign policy brought terrorism to our shore and it’s just blow-back, and therefore understandable and justified. It’s why he didn’t want any kind of retribution after it, not even trying to destroy Al Qaeda. His hatred and ideology blinds him to reality.
It’s why he told his aide, Eric Dondero, that we shouldn’t have entered WW2 even if that meant the complete extermination of the Jews, and why it was too bad Israel came into existence afterword. He believes the citizens of Israel are all interlopers and that the Arab Palestinians are the rightful occupants of the land, and that we are complicit in this injustice by supporting and allying ourselves with Zionists.
The ideology is so extreme that his mentor, the author of it, and the man who probably helped write those racist newsletters in the late 80’s and early 90’s under Paul’s name, Murray Rothbard, would praise Che Guevara. Yes the same Che Guevara, serial killer, who butchered thousands. That is the side that Ron Paul is on. But then Che was also a physician.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1535
jb, if you are interested in the real Ron Paul and what he stands for, then visit antiwar.com and read the lunatic rants of Justin Raimondo. That is ground zero for anarcho-libertarianism, or as they have tried to rebrand it, paleo-conservatism.
Raimondo is the current spokesman for Paul’s brand of isolationism. It intersects with radical leftist ideology. Some of the same writers end up at counterpunch.org, like former Reagan Asst. Treasury Secretary, Paul Craig Roberts.
What they all have in common is a visceral hatred of this country, even though they pretend otherwise.
Frank – You err, first of all, by referring to Paul’s brand of isolationism. Ron Paul is not an isolationalist, never has been. TPTB among those of both parties that have advanced the perpetual war syndrome, along with the steady erosion of personal rights, are openly spreading falsehood, or, if I treat it more charitably, have failed to consult Webster’s.
There is quite a difference between “non-interventionist” – which Paul most certainly is, and the smear label isolationist, which he most certainly is not. He stands with and the Constitutional precepts our American forefathers hammered out and stood for. Would you then call them “isolationists?”
The hatred of Paul Craig Roberts from all quarters is that he was an insider, he knew how the internal machinery works, and his conscience remained intact and he is able to speak openly of what is really happening.
Since TR trumpeted being a Progressive” as he was initiating America fully into the folly of European imperialism (from which our American experiment was founded as a haven against), the term “liberal” which belonged to those who, like we Americans, had broken free of the imperialistic feudalism of Europe, was hijacked by the progressives. Wilson, Roosevelt and Truman, all Democrats and all having become “liberals” who showed their progressive colors in their penchant for war. “Conservatives” were but the former liberals who held to matters Constitutional, but also who have been forced, ever since, to gain a foothold within the GOP, which purported to be somehow different than the Dems, but is rarely anything but merely just another form of advancing the gummint and its imperialism.
Of course, the Cold War was a threat by Korea, and the great WFB, while espousing a return to “conservative” values, likewise said that the GOP had to maintain its war footing. By the time the Soviets collapsed, the mentality was ensconced within the GOP. I was there, and silly enough and caught up enough in what I was fed from the conservative GOP party of which I was a member to think that the Epic War on Grenada was of monumental import to a world seeking peace. By the time Bush I staged his loudspeaker war on the notorious threat to world peace, Noriega of Panama, I realized that it was a sham. Nothing since then has persuaded me otherwise.
I would love a front-row seat in a debate on “war” between you and Justin Raimondo. Unlike the nodding heads of the electorate, or those attached to the gummint nipple every bit as much for its jingoistic war efforts as for entitlements, I read everybody. Raimondo takes on anyone and everyone, and most who haven’t the stomach for dealing with facts resort, as did you, to labels and “lunatic” assessments without qualification. And to clear up matters in your lectionary, he is “libertine” in his social politics, while I am not; but he is no isolationist – he is quite open about opposing the War Party of both parties.
In fact his very column today is what caused me to write this response.
Several other sniper shots you made: Dondero, if you have delved into his background, hardly seems much of a “witness” to anything but a desire for 15 minutes of fame. There is far more to the post WWII history than is common knowledge amongst the electorate – most vote on slogans without examination.
You state “what they all have in common is a visceral hatred of this country” needs some examination on your part.
I do not equate “my country” – “my America” – the land of my birth and my birthright” – with either gummint, or its abysmal actions of the last century or so. I believe in “American Exceptionalism” but sans any reference to gummint. Our forefathers tried to limit gummint, knowing full well what it could become. I, like our forefathers, also have an deep and abiding and yes “visceral” hatred of our gummint, but not of America.
You have in your zealotry, conflated the two, demand that the rest of us see it your way.
Rest assured, we do not, no matter what label, in your attempt to shame us into your camp, you apply to us.
Eric is spot on in about the reductionism now in play. What gummint types and their adherents (I could be both snarky and correct in calling said adherents “groupies” – but I won’t) hate most about Paul, is that he has pitted their cherished themes, memes, actions, and candidates advocating more of the same …
Against what we were founded to be as a nation. That hoary head speaks a wisdom few in their lifetimes have heard, and perhaps, (it may be the last opportunity before the communists or fascists or both complete their takeover), for Americans to vote on whether to remain American or not.
That scares the bejeebers out of the political class. And while I am more than certain your side will win and you will squelch this “uprising” in the end, and give us another war-mongerer (the Bammster and the rest of the GOP are all on record calling for more war!) and pseudo-economist to further our financial spiral downward, I must admit . . .
It hilarious watching y’all squirm in such obvious discomfort.
Peace
A sidebar –
Without Paul, I very much doubt the Grey Lady’s chief editors would have let this pass into print.
Most amusing were the last two paragraphs:
Bill Watson, a former Republican central committeeman for Story County, called foreign policy Mr. Paul’s “weakest point” with Iowa Republicans and said Mr. Paul could poll perhaps 40 percent if he pursued an orthodox Republican approach.
Mr. Watson says he is uncommitted — and differs with Mr. Paul in some areas — but he is frustrated that Mr. Paul is caricatured as overly dovish. “If you listen to him long enough he makes more sense,” he said.
He makes sense, but, well, ya know, he needs to come into the fold.
No, he doesn’t. He is doing far more damage to TPTB – and watching all the effort of the MSM (of whom FOX has conceded to be a part) – trying to explain away his effect on the national discussion, is absolutely hilarious.
This is quite a show!
An ideology becomes a sickness when it blinds its adherents to reality. In order to be consistent in his beliefs about non-interventionist foreign policy, Ron Paul was and is unwilling to confront the evil nature of radical Islam. That is why he looked at 9/11 as an inside job first, and then as blow-back from OUR intervention in the Middle East. In order to do this he has to blot out over a thousand year history of the Muslim religion, and set aside the aggression everywhere else in the world.
Do Ron Paul and Justin Raimondo believe the beheadings in the Philippines, or the butchery of Christians in Indonesia, the Bali bombings, the insanity in Nigeria or the Sudan, the killing of school children by Muslims in Russia, and pages more that I could list but don’t have the stomach to recite – do they believe that is blow-back?
They must blind themselves to all this to keep a lock on their mistaken ideology. It is sick, as sick as a gay man, Justin Raimondo, breaking bread with Muslims and communists at a bash America peace conference in Malaysia in 2005. He rubbed elbows with George Galloway, the Muslim British MP who thought Saddam Hussein was a jolly good fellow, and Danial Ellsberg, but did manage to say a few words of protest before Mugabe was to speak.
Ron Paul can hide behind Constitutional limits and decry foreign entanglements all he wants. The reality is that if he managed to actually carry out his foreign policy we would be a sitting duck, isolated and alone in a world of nuclear armed religious fanatics. Iran is not trying for a nuclear capacity after building all those enrichment facilities Ron? What other fantasy do you want us to believe!
Well, Justin used to work for Pat Buchanan…
And at least there was Gary Johnson while he lasted.
(As to the rest, I am so sick of politics that I can barely stand to write about it.)
jb,
I have taken on Raimondo. On his own blog. The boy didn’t have the courage to defend himself against me.
BTW the Paul/Raimondo vision for what American foreign policy should be like is exactly the same as the CPUSA vision for American foreign policy. Something is not right.
====
Like it or not the USA has taken over the British role as defender of commerce. Ron Paul is not ready for that reality.
====
I do like Ron, and I might even vote for him again, but to say that his foreign policy is a match for reality is nuts. He is correct about Drug Prohibition badly distorting it – so he is not totally off. But on the rest of the stuff he would go back to the days when the Brits were doing what we now do. And they can’t do it. Who would he rather handled the job? The Chinese?
Amen, Eric.
Ron Paul is a man who wants to cancel his expensive insurance policy just as it looks as if he is about to get really sick.
Frank –
A moment of clarity here – the primary reason the Brits can’t do what they once did/or quit doing (although they will try with the Falklands again), is that they kept trying, which led them to become America’s poor cousin, always needing us having to bail their butts out of whatever new misadventure into which they had wandered.
I cannot tell if, in your correspondence with Raimondo, he merely ignored you, or actually fell to your argumentation. Given you present reluctance to respond to specifics beyond ad hominem, the latter seems highly improbable, but I will grant it if you say so.
What you have not done, and which was my real point, is to in any way defend the present (and historical) tack of perpetual war. Give me a Constitutional basis in which our shores have ever been threatened after 1812. You cannot.
You will raise, as do all in the dual-party progressive movement of the last 100 years, riase the specter of all sorts of boogey-men. You answered none of the critical questions or memes I posed, but rather, you deflected your response back again to how terrible Paul is and you make tons of unprovable assertions supposedly to prove your point against any who might agree with Paul’s primary points.
Let me cut to the heart of the matter – there is NOTHING that makes America the successor to British commerce, or the guarantor of protection thereof. The Brits were money hungry bastards who finally got figured out by most of the world, including America.
AS to blotting out 1000 years of Muslim history, we Christians (I speak for myself), were not exactly without blame, and yet again, Britain, imagining itself to be the Anglo-Saxon version of the hand of God, bent on revenge, hardly restrained itself, or its allies in the Crusades and other confrontations.
Of course, that will involve a great deal of theology, about which, from what I read tus far, you are hardly prepared to deal. Britain and the Puritanical element in America, immersed in the false millenialism that view both as the New Jerusalem, have merely given way to actuality in politics.
Ron Paul will never be elected, there will be a rebellion or an assassination before that happens, but he has bared the asses of all who pretend that the multi-party rule over free citizens is legitimate.
It is not.
When you spend as much time with the COnstituion as you do reading GOP platform proclamation, you will understand just how far from our heritage we have drifted.
I am not sure of Simon’s point with his last comment, but I understand Eric’s weariness with all matters political.
The USSR collapsed under the weight of their imperialism, running what little economy they had into the ground. American politicians seem intent on the same result, only, our economy was much stonger before we gave up and let the socialists and communists and imperialists run the show.
Paul has drwan all of you out. Whether or not Americans get it, is an altogther different matter.
My bet? Most will not, having bought into your reasoning fully.
So be it. There will be no need for those who stand where I do to say “I told you so” –
You will “get it” then.”
jb:
1. You meant to address M.Simon about corresponding with Justin Raimondo. I’ve never posted to his website or met the man. I did, however, have a face to face many years ago with Jim Peron at his shop on Market Street in San Francisco when we were bar hopping in The Castro. That was Laissez Faire Books I think. It was down Market Street from Castro a few blocks on the north side. Peron and his lover were the two who escorted Ron Paul around the Bay Area according to Eric Dondero.
I wasn’t impressed with Peron. Of course at the time I didn’t consider myself a libertarian. Far from it. He came across as a “monkey wrencher” type, promoting books about getting even, the anarchist cookbook, and NAMBLA. I never went back. Apparently Ron Paul was quite infatuated with the guy, or easily taken in.
2.Give me a Constitutional basis in which our shores have ever been threatened after 1812. You cannot.
Pearl Harbor and 9/11
And I don’t want to hear any crap about the terrorists not representing or in the hire of a specific country. They were the shock troops of radical Islam which was supported by a number of Middle East cesspool countries at the time. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, to name a few. Any city or military installation in any of those countries would have been a justifiable target after 9/11. My preference would have been Tehran and Kabul.
I do not know Justin well, but I met him in San Francisco years ago, and more recently when he came to Ann Arbor. He couldn’t be a nicer person, and he is very sincere, even though I don’t agree with him. I felt a bit sorry for him the way he was being slammed by the lefties who came to the event, and I thought he was attempting the impossible. (It should not be forgotten that it is possible to like people and disagree with them at the same time.)
Justin Raimondo, BTW, slammed Gary Johnson for being too pro-Israel.
Frank – I apologize for my confusion about Justin – but the best you have with Dondero and Peron is guilt by association, and none of it about the very concrete issues of this campaign.
Your illustration? Surely you have read more than your 5th grade history text on Pearl. Had Roosevelt not put in place his oil embargo, answered the urgent cables from Tokyo, acted according to those in Japan desperately trying to get American’s attention to the crap Tojo was pulling so as to avoid a war, all of which was designed to provoke Japan into action, Pearl would not have happened.
As a matter of fact, we had stolen all of Hawaii in one of our other imperialistic ventures, and at the time, it was merely a territory, with an aging fleet in dock. Take careful notice that the main fleet with the modern carriers was conveniently “out to sea” on the 7th.
History is a most inconvenient animal. Roosevelt, like his cousin years earlier, was a screaming progressive who, like Wilson, talked out of both sides of his mouth about war.
But the sorry fact is, the GOP has adopted the progressive desire for war far in excess of those supposedly their political opponents, and have used with and against Paul, known deceptions like “isolationism” – and are trying to herd the cats back into the bag that Paul has released.
Eric – having read Justin’s piece on Johnson, it is hard to say he “slammed” him. He rightly wondered about Johnson’s credentials when he was trying to carve out a special niche in his view.
Israel is 4th behind us, Russia and China in military nuclear capability. They have never been held accountable for their nuclear capabilities. We do not need to send our sons and daughters off to be fodder for a war they wish to start.
If they want to attack Iran, they are free to do so. Whether or not it is humanitarian is quite another matter, and Gary Johnson is not first on my list of those I would consult in such a matter.
He is but a governor; Ron Paul has had access to far higher intelligence reports.
To Justin’s complete credit, no one online credits sources better or more often than does he. I doubt if many, or any of his critics have clicked through his sources.
Eric, thanks for the personal info on Justin Raimondo. Ron Paul seems like a very nice man in interviews also, and sincere. But he’s like everyone’s squirrely uncle who walks up to you after dinner with a grin on his face and says – “Hey kid, I got a joke for ya.” Then puts out his hand and squawks “Pull my finger!”
jb, you’re all wet about FDR and the start of WW2. I’ve read the revisionist history, and Pat Buchanan’s. Next you’ll be going the John Birch Society route and have Ike a communist. I’ve had enough of this.
Frank
That rebuttal doesn’t work anymore.
You haven’t had enough of anything, especially – your own way with others.
Run on over to Gateway Pundit and commiserate with your comrades.