« ReLOVEution My Ass | Main | Just This, Then I'm Done. Really. »
Ron Paul, Part Deux
January 29, 2008
I have to say, I was disappointed at the lack of outrage and retaliation over my last post. Any time Ron Paul is spoken of in less than glowing terms on any other site, that site is swarmed with rabid supporters. On top of that, I called Mac fanatics the "Aggies of the computer world." I get nothing. Clearly, I have vastly underestimated how unstimulating and dull I am, and I really thought I already had a pretty fair idea of that. That, and most people were probably able to determine that either I, or a dying campaign, was not worth their time.
Then Kathy came along and posted a comment to that post, showing some much-needed fire, making some good points, and raising some of the questions that this whole mess has engendered over the last couple of weeks. So, I want to look at those points. Kathy, I hope you don't take the responses personally.
"Are you mad that people aren't writing 'rudy' all over the place, or painting 'I love huck' on the back of their cars?"
OK, you got off to a bad start - how does that follow logically from what I said? I was pretty clear that I don't think it's right for anyone to do, for any candidate. To be clearer, I don't care if people are spray painting "Ron Paul", "Huckleberry Hound", "Obama", or "RUSH" on the side of bridges and walkways - I don't like it. It's ugly, it's vandalism, and it's faux extremism that I've only seen exercised by the supporters of one candidate around here.
I have no problems with what people stick and paint on their cars - the mention of that was to illustrate that he has a very broad appeal, which is surprising given the content of his newsletters and, as far as liberal Paul supporters go, is surprising given his voting record. As bumper stickers go, I'm far more likely to rant and wage a campaign against the ones that have a horribly infringed Calvin engaging in everything from kneeling before the cross to urinating on any number of automotive marquees.
"What I see is people finally giving a crap about politics. I'll bet many people are voting for the first time in many years. There is finally some passion about somebody. People are learning and getting out there, voicing their opinions. What's wrong with that?"
I didn't say anything was wrong with that. In fact, I'm encouraging people to inform themselves. Props to Paul and his supporters - they have used the Internet more effectively than any candidate ever has, for information, fundraising, and advertising. He and his supporters saw the possibilities, manifested them, and have changed the game forever. Does that make him the best candidate?
I'm also glad to see so many people motivated, I truly am. This is not the first presidential campaign I've followed closely, and this one is different. We have needed hope, and he's stirring hope in people. For the first time in 16 years, though, "hope" is a central factor in almost all the campaigns, even in the GOP. He has seized this moment, and I believe he genuinely wants change. But at this point, for most of us, even for a lot of Republicans, the needs for change and hope are no-brainers. There has to be more.
Do you agree with his libertarian principles? Do you agree that most federal agencies and institutions are unconstitutional and should be abolished? Whichever side you fall on, do you agree that issues like abortion and gay marriage should be strictly for the states to decide? Do you believe we were only justified in entering World War II because of Pearl Harbor? Do you believe the Civil War was wrong, and that the Trilateral Commission is trying to dominate the world? Sorry, I guess those don't really matter, I just find it funny.
I don't disagree with everything the guy says. But then, I don't disagree with everything that any of the candidates say. I do disagree with enough of Paul's issues to keep me from voting for him. But as importantly, I think his newsletters should not be so easily disregarded.
"That newsletter was published over ten years ago." Actually, let's look at the timeline. If this was over the span of a few months, then maybe his story is viable. How early do the problematic comments start? Well, there's the June 1990 edition, when it said, "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
Wow, I don't even know where to start with the December 1989 edition of the Ron Paul Political Report. Check it out yourself and see if it meshes with your values.
Let's see, July 1994, quotes "criminoligist" Jared Taylor as saying, "if you subtract the crimes committed by blacks from the overall U.S. crime rate, we have no more crime proportionately than Western Europe, and less than Britain." Now, if this is true, then let's talk about it. Of course, Jared Taylor is the founder of American Renaissance magazine, which promotes eugenics and white supremacy. Back in 1991, the Ron Paul Political Report published subscription information for it.
Let's not even get into the fact that the paranoid survivalist tone is consistent with his Senate campaign fundraising letters dating back to 1984. That would take us from 1984 to his pro-militia newsletters into 1995, at least.
Instead, let's ignore that entire 11-year period, and just stick with the newsletter's comments on race and sexual preference, which I think, given the articles cited above and all the ones from the intervening years, we can agree run at least from December 1989 through July 1994.
So, let's really think about this. Let's be charitable and say that his "people", his employees, were printing this kind of stuff in the selection of newsletters that bore his name, that often represented themselves to be written by him, on a consistent basis for almost five years. If these comments are so un-Paul, can you even acknowledge that it's odd that he never read these newsletters, that no friend or acquaintance ever read these and said, "Hey, Ron, uhh... what the hell is all this about?" Can you really even begin to believe that?
And, so, if you can and do believe that, then what is the reality that such a belief requires? That he was surrounded by people that weren't bothered by this? That he was so insulated from everything that he had no way of knowing? That he was never curious about what his newsletters said?
For that matter, do you think something called The Ron Paul Survival Report lends itself more to the way you see the world, or to the kind of sentiments Paul denies having? Maybe he was not even aware of the titles of his newsletters? This is circumstantial evidence, at best, but it is yet another piece of reality that is consistent with the things that and his other newsletters had to say.
The Texas Monthly article that your comment cites also says that when the newsletters were brought up by an opponent in 1996, that Paul said "his written comments about blacks were in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.'" the very next paragraph, however, quotes him as saying, "those words weren't really written by me."
The Texas Monthly article is worth reading - I really do have a measure of respect for Paul, not bowing to his own Republican party or special interests. But, I don't agree with the unblinking strict Constitutional constructionist ideal that underlies most of his votes and actions. It's easy to look at some of his votes and see virtue, when really, they're based solidly in his views on the Constitution and states rights, and not necessarily a moral argument.
You were eloquent enough and doing well enough on your own - you didn't need the commenter. He doesn't really help. The commenter you quote accuses people of trying to smear Ron Paul by perpetuiating "this lie." Even if you are able to concoct a reality in which Ron Paul is completely innocent of any real responsibility for what was printed by his people under his name for at least half a decade, it's not really correct to call reprinting the newsletter's "a lie". I suppose you could call it "perpetuating only half of the story, the other half being almost completely ludicrous."
The commenter says that Paul "has delivered 4,000 babies and MANY of them were non-white, and he clearly gave them and their mothers his caring medical expertise."
Wow. Of course, no racists work with, help, or are ever kind to people of color. In fact, I'm pretty sure they're all armed with Lugers, and shoot on sight.
"He has spoken out against institutionalized racism for his entire political career. Those quotes don't match up with anything else he says!"
Actually, we've mainly seen him speak out against institutionalized racism in response to what was printed in his newsletters (I'm sorry, I feel bad calling them "his" newsletters. Am I perpetuating "a lie"?) I have yet to see, and no one has pointed out, anything contradictory in his newsletters. But yes, I'll give you that what his newsletters say don't match up at all with his denials or what he's said in his campaign.
You started by asking what my point was. I'll try to make several of them much clearer.
The guy has to take more than "moral responsibility" for this. Maybe you accept his explanation, and think it's enough for a guy that wants to be our president. I don't. But at least you and I have both asked the question and determined an answer. A lot of people don't get that far.
People need to know more about ALL their candidates. We can't trust the mainstream media. Maybe you missed it, but I don't have that much good to say about them, either. The candidates pretty much all have things we should be concerned about. I went a little too easy on the Republican candidates as a whole, because it's all relative to what we've had for the last eight years. None of them are as clearly part of the same Bush establishment - can you imagine if we had Cheney or Perry running?
Some things are unacceptable. Bigotry and lying about it are up there near the top of the list.
"I see after all that complaining you do, you don't have a better solution."
Here's a concise list of solutions:
1. Inform yourself, about all the choices.
2. Don't be blinded by someone's position on a single issue.
3. Demand that people be responsible for their actions.
4. Don't wrap your beliefs in your ego so much that truth can no longer sway you.
5. Don't let the genuine need for hope and change be used as a political tool to blind you.
Look, I will definitely acknowledge that I agree with many things he has to say, particularly about our policy in the Middle East. I agree that he says things other people are afraid to say. I acknowledge that there's a chance that the guy is not a bigot, is not as loopy as Alex Jones. I'd like to believe these things, but common sense tells me otherwise. And, I don't believe that many of his supporters are OK with what his newsletter makes him appear to stand for.
In our anger, in our need for hope, and in our fervor for change, it is too easy to move from mob apathy to mob blindness. If we allow that to happen, then we go further down the same road that we're struggling to leave, following a new strain of the same sort of virulent leader we're rebelling against. History has shown us time and again how dangerous that can be. We think as American's we're beyond that, but we're not. We're as human as ever, as easily led, as easily lost, and as easily blinded as ever. It hurts to be disappointed in something you believed in, but sometimes, just sometimes, truth is more important than faith.
Posted by Rob at January 29, 2008 08:43 AM
Comments
I didn't attack your mac comment because I knew it came from a place of jealousy, not deserving my scorn or derision. Just pity.
I also agreed with you on Ron Paul, who A was supporting vocally until the whole race thing came up.
I have one word for you: Obama!
Posted by: Jennifer at January 29, 2008 12:46 PM
OK, I'm going to partially retract something - I said his newsletters don't match up with his denials or what he's said when campaigning for office. That leaves out something that I meant to talk about, but omitted, that in a way, speaks in Paul's favor.
Looking at some of the material in his newsletters, the writer seems to attribute the bad racially-identifiable behavior of certain ethnic groups not to some natural defect, but to the effects of poor economics, government, media, and other influences. When the writer talks about blacks carjacking whites, I think he or she sees these "animals" as creations of the welfare state.
So, I do believe that Paul truly believes, as he says in his campaign materials, that the Problems With Black People would be fixed by his approach to government.
In a sense, in theory, I respect someone that is not afraid to look at statistics and say, hey, we got a problem here, and it correlates to race, and it's not because they're black/brown/just non-white. But the tone of these newsletters don't quite pull that off, do they? The blackness of the miscreants in the Ron paul Newsletter world is hammered in pretty well. On top of that, hazy stats from white supremacists are never a good starting point for discussion.
Of course, when it comes to gays, and when it comes to the militia-lovin' "end of government as we know it" and zany currency-trackin', black helicopter-flyin' government plots, you can pretty much take the newsletters at face value.
Posted by: rob at January 29, 2008 01:02 PM
Yeah, well, stay tuned next week, for "The Mac Book (Hot) Air Review", and "Am I A Bad Feminist If I Vote For Obama?"
Posted by: rob at January 29, 2008 01:05 PM
I cannot wait for your feminist post.
The correct answer is "no," by the way.
Posted by: Jennifer at January 29, 2008 05:37 PM