Matt Welch of Reason magazine did a little digging and found that during the 1990’s Ron Paul generally defended and took full ownership of the racist comments published in his newsletters.
At HotAir, Allahpundit notes the continuing — and increasingly silly — defenses being mounted by some Paul supporters, snarks that Paul “might as well own up and confess to having written the newsletters. They wouldn’t love him any less if he did.”
Allahpundit may be right about that, not simply due to the racist element surrounding his “rEVOLution,” but also — as Ross Douthat notes at The Atlantic — due to the interpersonal dynamics of what is in reality a tiny subset of Americans.ÂÂ
Douthat’s post is a very limited defense of Paul. His Atlantic co-blogger, Excitable Andrew Sullivan, had this comment about Paul after last night’s debate in SC:
And, yes, thank God for Ron Paul… When he was asked to disown the 9/11 Truthers, he gave a revealing answer, and one that reflects on the newsletters issue. It just isn’t in his nature to adopt other people’s views, or to tell anyone else what to believe or what to say. He doesn’t just believe in libertarianism; he lives it. This means that he doesn’t have the instinct to police anyone else’s views or actions within the law or the Constitution. I don’t think it excuses his negligence in the past, but it does help me understand it better.
Sullivan’s post is even headed with a picture of someone carrying a Ron Paul for President placard. At post-time, Sullivan has linked to a piece in The Economist arguing that Paul is at least prepared to countenance pandering to racists (not being aware of Paul’s new-to-us defense of the newsletters at the time) without comment.
The problem for Sullivan is that Welch has now shown that this was not a case of negligence. This was not a case of his unwillingness to tell others what to think or say. Paul backed the comments his newsletters.
Sullivan is cutting a ridiculous amount of slack to Paul, far more than he has been willing to grant Pres. Bush. He cannot abide a man who opposes gay marriage, but continues to cast his lot with a movement fueled in part by people far less tolerant.ÂÂ
P.S.: I know that some regulars here question why anyone should be interested in what Sullivan writes. I could dig up the links demonstrating that Sullivan’s blog remains among the most-heavily trafficked on the web, and the tail that wags the dog of The Atlantic’s website. At this juncture, however, my interest is best explained as the same phenomenon that causes motorists to slow down to gawk at a grisly car wreck along the road.
I will admit that sometimes I vote libertarian if only to make some more centrist politicians consider the fact that not all of us believe that the current situation of government solving all of our problems is in fact disgusting.
However, Paul highlights the problem with the Libertarians as a whole; they just can’t say no to anything. It is reasonable to want less government intervention in our daily life. It is wrong to get that by aligning yourself with complete and utter racist.
I could even deal with it if these comments were bigoted. But they go beyond bigotry. They are racist. They allude to some demented mind process that being white makes you smarter and that of course is completely irresponsible.
RoA,
To quote a commenter at Althouse:
I don’t think you can say Reason is in denial about this. In some ways, Welch’s piece is even more damning than the Kirchick piece. Sullivan is most definitely in denial about this, but your post title implies that Reason is also in denial.
If Ron Paul is the only man who can save America and his campaign falters because of his long held racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, and misogynistic views, does that mean all hope is lost?
Can Kucinich save us? He’s got a hot wife!
Mark,
I agree that Welch is not in denial, though the linked piece doesn’t really contain much of his opinion about what he discovered.
Is this what you see when you picture a Ron Paul rally in your head?
Oh, that’s good, with the possible exception of the color of the shirts.
/Godwin
“…he doesn’t have the instinct to police anyone else’s views or actions within the law or the Constitution.”
Isn’t that pretty much the definition of the Office of President and the Executive Branch?
B Moe,
Good point, though RP has hinted he would use the pardon power to effectively nullify laws he disagrees with. One can only imagine what the Lefty side of his support would think of that… if Bush did it, that is.
I cannot understand anyone believing Paul is racist. Everything the man says and does and pushes for is about equality for the individual. And this whole bit about not being responsible…how can he be any MORE responsibile than he has been? It’s irrelevant anyway, but even if Paul were to uncover who did the writing…then what? What woud be the next step in making Paul responsible? Even if the author(s) where to admit to penning the letters, knowingly without Pauls blessing and perhaps even to hurt Paul…well then, all the critics would have to say is Paul was neglegent. Frankly, with this kind of commitment to finding fault, there is simply no way Paul could be freed of this.
Of course, lets not forget the all the other candidates have skeletons in their closets, but somehow, Paul’s momment of irresponsibility is simply too nasty to drop. I’d bet my paycheck that no other candidate would dare bring this issue of Pauls up in public for fear of being compaired. No, they’ll just sit back quietly and breathe relief in knowing that the media hasn’t come down this hard on their errors in judgement, regardless of how much more damning those errors might be compaired to Pauls.
This country is beyond help.
THIS COUNTY IS BEYOND HELP
And as evidence of Jeff’s assertion, I present to you … Jeff.
You misspelled negligent.
Sorry, that’s all I can offer to refute a Paul supporter. You’re beyond reasoning with.
Jeff,
How ’bout if we just promise to cut Pawn Rall as much slack as we’ve cut Senator Kleagle?
I was curious if Karl found the Sullivan piece because he was googling “neo-Confederate” to see if there were new Protein Wisdom converts and, incidentally, ran across Sully’s piece?
Oh, and JD, make sure you find someone who’s dissenting and call him names before Kelly can. You guys are like a new odd couple: one seething with righteous indignation and one seething with anger. Frankly, angry in Idaho is more scary than indignant in Indiana.
Oh, and Ron Paul is the most honest and kooky gent running this year. If you’re going to vote for a kook (say Guiliani), then at least vote for the honest one…
I said “kook”, not “coot”, Thompson supporters…y’all can go back to sleep now.
MCCAIN IN ’08!
I appreciate the help and all, but you don’t seem to get my point: Paul is NOT racist. I don’t care who the Senator is. You don’t even need to reason with me. Just reason with the situation without for pre-assumption Paul is guilty of anything more than any off us.
This county IS beyond help. And I thank you for showing me the floor to make that point.
I’m Just Saying,
Inasmuch as you offered nothing but ad hominem, I was tempted to ignore you, but I must respond to one point.
1. Obviously not; the term “neo-Confederate†does not even appear in Sully’s piece. But I do have a Google Alert set for “pseudo-Christianist theo-bot.”
2. Neo-confederate would be a much more apt term for some of Paul’s supporters than for me or the typical PW convert. Actually that’s the subtext of the joke in point 1, but I figured I should be explicit for nitwits like IJS.
Just where, exactly, have I called anyone names on this thread, timmah?
But kudos on the stereotyping. The mark of facile intellectual laziness.
Nota Bene: you don’t know a damn thing about me other than the state I live in. If you think you can infer the slightest bit of insight into my personality from idle postings at PW, you’re more delusional than I thought. But hey, let’s still be buddies, huh?
Can anyone say “tacit endorsement”? I know Sully can.
IJS, STFU. Jackass.
When you’re talking to Timmah! you might as well let ‘er rip, kelly.
Timmah! thinks he’s a fucking oracle, but we know better. Take him for what he’s worth and whatnot.
I would vote for Paul, I think of him as someone that has many issues right. The drug war is devastating and stupid, the way the feds tax is not really constitutional, But why in the hell does he have to court these troofers and racist?
So he is SO uber-Libertarian that he can’t tell certain people that they are full of shit?
Sometimes you just have to make a judgment call. It’s ok to be judgmental when you are dealing with troofers. It’s ok to let someone know when they have passed into KKK territory.
Jeff,
You say, “Everything the man says and does and pushes for is about equality for the individual.”
The problem is that there exists a similar interpretation of this sentiment: Everything the man says and does and pushes if about freedom from government interference. On its own, this sentiment is admirable, and one that I couldn’t agree with more. The problem is that this sentiment has been seen by some very unsavory types as meaning that they’d be free to pursue their racism without all the meddling from the gubmint in Washington. If Paul did a better job of emphasizing equality and responsibility, and of distancing himself from the racists and the conspiracy theorists, he would have a much higher regard in this community.
It’s always been possible for Paul to say, “I think these people are wrong in their beliefs, but I don’t think it’s Washington’s place to persecute them. They support me not because I like them, but because I tolerate them.” He could expand on such a statement to illustrate the foundation of libertarianism — that when people are free, they’re free to do stuff that a lot of us don’t appreciate or agree with. But he isn’t saying these things, not after years and years of chances. Couple this with the online ravings of his army of zealots, and you’ve the makings of a significant image problem.
So because of the people he attracts, the public continues to associate libertarianism with these nasty fringe elements. Call it guilt-by-association if you will, and call it unfair if you want, but the truth is that Paul’s been rolling around with dogs for years, and people are bound to notice that he’s picked up a pretty good case of fleas. Fair or not, it’s the way the world works, and has always worked.
I have no illusions about a real libertarian being elected this year. What I really want is for a few good libertarians who can build support for future campaigns, or who can make the concept of limited government a significant plank in one of the major parties’ platforms. Paul’s poor management of libertarianism’s brand is not helping.
Ron Paul may not be a racist, but, let’s be blunt — he’s as close to the kooks who support him as the Democrats are to the kooks they let hold faux hearings that turned into antisemitic festivals.
I don’t want either of them anywhere near executive power, and I most certainly don’t want to support a party that would put Ron Paul as its most visible candidate.
Yeah. This Ron Paul guy is not particularly big on displaying sound judgment. I think as president he would be just kind of silly and harmless, and I think I would laugh at him way more than actually getting angry.
If the principles of libertarianism are so great as the supporters of WronG Paul claim, why can’t that collectivist movement put forward a candidate who doesn’t appear batshit crazy ot carry racist or conspiracy theory baggage to present their great ideas?
Is the problem that no such individuals exist?
I called my only Ron Paul supporter friend and asked him about this business. He said he had sort of started losing enthusiasm for Paul weeks ago already. I said oh I thought you were really excited about him. Not really, he said. So now I don’t have any Ron Paul friends, and I don’t know where to go to make any.
I’m not sure why people are spending so much time talking about Ron Paul and his past. All the experts said he wasn’t going to go anywhere or make any money. Their words lost all their credibility once Paul made his millions and placed higher than “top-tier” candidates. By their opinions that should have never happened: Hell should have frozen over before Paul could command such results. Well now that Hell has frozen over – the “experts” don’t know how to perceive anything and their making stuff up as they go…
I can prove Ron Paul isn’t a racist: He’s not running as a Democrat.
That’s right. I went there.
@daleyrocks
The reason why Paul appears “batshit crazy ot carry racist or conspiracy theory baggage [sic]” to you is because you wearing your “batshit crazy ot carry racist or conspiracy theory baggage [sic]” goggles when you’re listening to libertarian ideas.
Just because you don’t agree with an idea doesn’t mean you should flagrantly dismiss its messenger.
Geoff,
I suspect you’re new here, or you would know that most of the regulars, including daleyrocks, are pretty libertarian-friendly and don’t dismiss libertarian ideas at all. To the contrary, our esteemed host Jeff Goldstein, often writes about the encroaching nanny state. I think daleyrocks is referring to some of the more fringe elements of Paul’s brand of libertarianism, and the real-world prospects for their electoral success.
If you cannot see that Paul’s willingness to defend racist comments and to trade in fringe subcultures like the Truthers or Stormfront damages both Paul and libertarianism, you’re wearing blinders, not goggles.
Karl,
Paul’s willingness to defend racist comments?? When did this happened?
Ron Paul is not a racist. This is a classic smear campaign. You cannot argue with the man’s position and his track record…you attack him and in the case of Paul through association. Utter BS.
What positions do you disagree with Paul? Do tell. And finally, please tell me who you support?
RealPolitik,
Try the link in the first sentence of the original post.
I’m guessing withdrawal from Iraq. maybe. and also the return to the gold standard. although I’m not Karl. sorry, it’s just we’ve discussed this crap before. google it!
I’m not currently supporting any candidate, but RealPolitik is merely trying to make me the issue, or some policy disagreement the issue. In fact, I’m pretty sure that RP, like the RP would rather discuss any issue other than why his publications contained all sorts of racist and homophobic comments over the years.
Ron Paul — the only man who can save America — didn’t know what was going on. It’s quite a recommendation.
yeah well, I’m bored. and cranky. ;D
Ron Paul’s claim that the curerent kerfuffle is just a rehash of old news is partly true. Reason takes a look at what actually happeneed in 1996 and finds Paul took responsibility for writing arguably racist portions of the newsletters then. He didn’t blame unnamed editors or writers. There is no record of people being fired or disclaimers of offensive content.
Was Ron Paul lying then or now? Why should he be trusted if he has a history of lying?
The really cool thing about being a principled libertarian, which people claim Paul is, is that you can be so principled that you believe so firmly that everyone has a right to their own opinions, you can’t bring yourself to condemn bigoted, racist, homophobic, positions offensive to the vast majority of America, but you can still find it your heart to condemn U.S. foreign policy and the international Jewish banking conspiracy.
The unprincipled laziness of libertarian thought, catch the fever!!!!
Ron Paul says the war is illegal becasue it was not declared by Congress. But he voted for action in Afghanistan, and somehow that’s not illegal.
And he accused US troops of war crimes in the Gulf War.
“you can’t bring yourself to condemn bigoted, racist, homophobic, positions offensive to the vast majority of America, but you can still find it your heart to condemn U.S. foreign policy and the international Jewish banking conspiracy.”
That’s easy. It’s the unstated offensive opinions that lead to condemnation of US foreign policy and international Jewish banking. So long as the underlying opinions remain unstated, you don’t get criticized for them.
RTO – But neo-cons (code for the ZOG) are fair game for the Paulster, while Troofers and neoNazis are off limits. Curious rules this principled libertarianism has. Apparently some groups can be criticized. How does he do it? He make it up to suit his agenda and fund raising needs.
The Troofers and the neo-Nazis feel the same way about ZOG as the “principled libertarians.”
Hit Say It! too soon.
Since the “pl” (hmm “p(au)l”?) never say things overtly that would get them labeled as Troofer or neo-Nazi, they get political cover.
That’s my point, would they ever actually say what they believed, they’d be given the labels that fit.
I find some libertarian ideas interesting but don’t buy many of them. I’d call myself an environmentalist and proudly. We’ve been warning you for at least fourty years, that the earth is in critical condition, with or without global warming. I don’t even hear libertarians talking, about what, to anyone with a brain, can see is by far the biggest issue facing mankind. Ron Paul rates poorly in this area as do all the republican candidates. How do you arrive at the idea that property rights are more important than My right to live on a planet that will support life. I own no property. I believe I have a right to clean air etc. The founding fathers were brilliant men, but they were not 100% right on everything. They still believed in the rights of property over the rights of people. Libertarians and conservatives in general cling to this idea which is clearly unsound. Strict constitutionalists cling to beliefs which are no longer relevent in the modern world.
the founding fathers in no way could have forseen the complexity of our modern world. They lived in a world where women couln’t vote, blacks were still slaves and only those with property really had any say. Ideaologues are never completely on target. Their beliefs get in the way. I won’t vote for any ideologue from either right or left. And yes Ron Paul is a racist.
His views on religion are extrememly narrow minded. His labeling of liberals as racists, as Ann Coulter has also done, is absurd. If you think the right has the moral high ground, just try to imagine Jesus Christ as a conservative. If you are truly intellectually honest you will have to admit that the idea is absurd. Let’s see, pro war, pro torture, pro the big and powerful over the less well off, for the death penalty, against protecting the earth(unless it doesn’t cost too much of course), judgemental of others life styles, judgemental of others’ Doen’t sound very Christian does it? Oh, but they care about the unborn, Pro Life not even close
It’s them dog whistles and code. Principled libertarianism provides a big tent since it only criticizes certain people, like those that don’t give it money, whites and non-jews, and non-drug users.
errrr, just who are most Christians quoting when it comes to “judgement of others”?
So, Rick,
As an anti-constitution, anti-capitalist, anti-liberty, anti-property,anti-history, anti-industry person wo apparently has Christ’s cellphone number, how do you square your “tollerance” with the judgmental statements you’ve made here?
“If you are truly intellectually honest you will have to admit that the idea is absurd.”
When someone starts a sentence this way, the way Rick did above, you know honesty is the last thing that is coming down the pike. That was a pretty funny description of conservatives, Rick, and their relation to Christians. Do you know any of either?
Jeez, Rick M, I’m sorry your planet won’t support life. If you’d like to move to earth I’m sure we could find room for you and even a nice tree to hug..
Hmmm….
Methinks Rick M. has caught the fever.
CARBON COMPRESS, STAT!!
BJ – My guess is another vegan nut job.
Heh, daleyrocks. You and the crew over at Patterico’s would know about them.
[…] seems like only four days earlier, Sullivan was thanking God for Ron Paul, and “understanding” his […]
it’s really sad to read all these anti-paul people so smug about themselves, and the generalizations they make about his supporters. if you’re gonna attack a candidate’s supporters so much, at least be fair about it. what kinda supporters does mike huckabee have? why doesn’t anyone blog about how his supporters are a bunch of blind, racist bible-beating nutjobs, supporting a man just because he wants to ban abortion and “take the country back for Christ”? Cause that’s way effin’ crazier than bringing back the gold standard.
how come nobody talks about the wackos that support john mccain (i don’t personally know any but they apparently exist), who wanna vote for a man who has pledged our troops to fighting government oil wars for the next 100 years and calling it “national security”, and a person who quips “i don’t wanna trade with al qaeda cause they only wanna trade burkas”. yea, that sounds like a tolerant guy. that statement wasn’t made 20 years ago anonymously deep in some newsletter, it was mccain’s very own mouth last week at the NH debate. how bout the giuliani, thompson and romney supporters who basically want the same thing as mccain’s?
or how about the entire anti-paul blogosphere? yea, those people are pretty nutty as well, congratulating each other on garnering comments from X number of hot-headed folks just for defending the candidate that they like.
all i have to say is at least it’s refreshing to actually find a candidate that you do like. no other candidate even comes close to saying anything i or hundreds of thousands of other RP donors personally agree with, but they’re getting a free ride because they’re all about the status quo. every last one of them.
look, if you would like to continue the downward spiral our country is in, and if you want to give our government more blank checks for more wars, and expand the nanny state until none of us are working and we’re all on the government tit, then by all means, vote for any other candidate. but, you want real change in government, and you want someone who won’t abuse signing statements and executive orders to protect his own ass, then put all your eggs in the ron paul basket, cause it’s him or bust. eight or ten vaguely racist statements concentrated within a three year span in a newsletter that had been in circulation for decades is irrelevant to me. i don’t blame him for wanting to move on from this nonsense. he’s already confronted it time and time again. i listen to what he’s saying now, and that is why i support him and no one else.
peace.
let me guess…most of the people calling out racist and trying to slam Paul…are white people….yeah i thought so.
You got some point you’re trying to make about white people there, chummy?
I’m Mulatto (b&w). I see things without bias because I have lived in this mixed up world straddling both sides of the fence and It’s gross and disgusting to assume Ron Paul is a racist from what you read in the papers and what the T.V. tells you to think. The TV and all those reporters and all those newspaper articles are hiding from you the true freedom that Ron Paul would bring us. Obama is not a BIG deal for THE MAN, because when you look past the feel good speeches my friend, he is also lying to you, The MAN loves Obama. Obama won’t release you from prison for smoking a spliff on your property and he won’t tell you that in order to give us “universal” health care that he would have to borrow more money from China and lead us deeper into the problems facing us financially or better yet, print more of the monopoly money making us collectively weaker as an economy and poorer as individuals. How many people who believe he is a racist have looked past the LIE that THE MAAAN is throwing out in a desperate attempt to keep it’s control over this election?
NAACP President, Nelson Linder (a black man), who has known Ron Paul for 20 years “unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.” “Dr. Paul has praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years,” the NAACP president said.
It’s amazing that THE MAN has “cast” this election with stereotypes (a woman, a mulatto/black?) To everyone reading this, you need to understand Ron Paul is hated in mass by many elite for a very good reason. He would end THE MAN.
I’m surprised to find not many of my black brothers and sisters understand that Ron Paul loves black people so much he wants to destroy the WAR ON DRUGS and release all non-violent drug offenders. Ron Paul talks about the disproportionate number of minorities imprisoned because THE MAN decided what is bad for you and what is safe.
Decide for yourself people, take care of yourself, end the printing of monopoly money to send overseas and support and stop killing us over a business deal for Haliburton and KBR in Iraq. Our Military needs to be on our borders and we need to put the cost of this war into our education and other needs in THIS COUNTRY. I can’t encourage you enough to at least watch a DVD, if nothing else make yourselves commit to watching “Freedom to Fascism” by Aaron Russo
Contrary to a few strident Paul-bashers, there is no evidence that Paul wrote any of the comments in question. As for Sullivan, his comments sound as if (unlike the Beltway Libertarians at Reason and Cato) he started to understand what “tolerance” means to a libertarian like Paul. For him, “tolerance” doesn’t mean tolerating just the people one likes: blacks, Jews, homosexuals, et al. “Tolerance” also means tolerating people one doesn’t like: Truthers, homophobes, anti-semites, white supremacists, etc.
It is apparently necessary to periodically remind the Paulbots showing up here that the very first link in the original post will take you to quote after quote of Ron Paul personally defending the content of the newsletters.
Also, suffice it to say that tolerating a racist does not require that one publish the racist’s views in one’s own newsletter with one’s own name on it.
you’re just being intolerant, Karl.
BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!!!
Karl, he defended the contents of the newsletters in one campaign, when his opponent began bringing them up. That’s not the same as defending them “throughout the 90s” or “claiming he wrote them”. Those were embellishments made up and added by the blog writers. So is your claim, in your last post, that it was ‘his newsletter’ – in fact, while he wrote for it, it was put out by a private company in another city miles away – not only did he not publish it, he never saw it (except for his own stuff) before publication. Those facts can all be found on line, though you’ll have to wade through two weeks of rumor and hearsay to find them.
Here is what is not hearsay or rumor:
1. The newsletter has his name on it. If that is the level of attention he gave it, I question his ability to keep track of the myriad issues a President faces on a daily basis.
2. More important, as you admit, he defended the contents when the issue was first brought up. That’s more than negligence and more than mere tolerance, which is what you claimed. If you don’t realize that — and what it does to libertarianism when RP is itss most public face — we will have to agree to disagree.
3. One need not be the person physically running the presses to be the publisher of a newsletter. This is typical of the hair-splitting the Paulians are wheeling out, though at least the ones who have turned up here aren’t pushiing the imaginary forgery claim.
1. Your first point is well taken; this does indicate that Paul, as President, would be too laissez faire, and not exercise enough oversight over his staff and cabinet. That appears to be his one proven fault here: he was too trusting of what was being done in his name: Though there’s some evidence, based on the newsletters themselves, that he took corrective action in a couple of cases after the fact, he let the basic arrangement continue and the same problems recur. (Why that doesn’t bother me is that I don’t expect him to win; what I see him doing here is educating a whole new generation of constitutionalists/libertarians who may be winning elections before I kick off.)
2. I could defend most of the comments myself. I won’t, because they’re really no longer the issue, but I’ll give you a link (from someone else who doesn’t like Ron Paul) to read if you wish.
http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2008/01/saint_paul_of_m.html
But only if you wish; I’m fine with agreeing to disagree on that one.
3. The fact is, he was not the publisher. The newsletters were designed to look like his congressional newsletters, but they were published by a private company (consisting mainly of his old staff), and his involvement was only to fax in material. Here’s some corroboration from an ex-employee:
http://www.lastfreevoice.com/2008/01/12/libertarians-react-to-paul-newsletter-scandal/#more-1142
As far as any “forgery” claims, well, I have to admit that it’s not only some of Paul’s bashers, but some of his defenders, who are trying to win the argument by making up factoids. Which is what bothers me most, that the more this gets discussed, the further from truth it seems to go.
So I’ll leave it here, thanking you both for printing my comments and for replying without rancor. I’ll admit that you have a good reason for not wanting Paul as President (1), you’re wrong about (3), and that it’s best for us to agree to disagree about (2).