Posted
by Gavon Laessig
January 16, 2008 at 6:27 p.m.
Sorry, Well Intentioned Hippies-Ron Paul Is A Crazy Bastard
Hitler was a vegetarian. Genghis Khan had a lovely throat singing voice. Jim Belushi will eventually die. Ron Paul opposes the war in Iraq. The common thread? Each of the previous statements highlights one redeeming feature of otherwise execrable wastes of sperm and egg. Ron Paul-and I hate to spray golden foam on those of you marching lock step in the mostly admirable peacenik parade-is a presidential candidate who's right on one issue, but tragically fucked in the head on virtually everything else. It's a shame to see so many decent people invest their time and wads of money into this bigoted paranoiac who resembles a slightly less mummified Burgess Meredith. As someone once said, "A stopped clock is still an asshole." Or something. Look, it really doesn't matter what some probably disgusting old person said a long time ago, because Ron Paul is insane. Let me count the ways:Before he became a Republican contrarian, beloved by millions for his outspoken opposition to George W. Bush's foreign policy, Ron Paul was just a run of the mill, moon bat Libertarian from Texas. And back in those days before broadband access, crazy people had newsletters. Think of them as Zines for people who listen to the Charlie Daniels Band and wish Strom Thurmond had been president. Ron Paul was a very prolific publisher of such newsletters. The New Republic recently undertook the unenviable task of wading through this toxic dreck (some of which is inexplicably archived at KU-go Hawks!), and came up with some ass clenchingly racist pearls.From [The New Republic][1]:"Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.") In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives."Other deliciously hateful bon mots from almost 20 years worth of Ron Paul newsletters:-On Washington D.C.: "I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."-On former Imperial Wizard of the KKK, David Duke: "Our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom."-On the L.A. riots: "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began."-On the end of apartheid in South Africa: "(It is the) destruction of civilization."-On gays: "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."-On AIDS: "A politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby," which is attempting to ""poison the blood supply."-On conspiratorial Jews: "(There are) tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to work for the Mossad in their area of expertise."-Advice for secessionist militias on dealing with the government: "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."And those are but a select few chestnuts from Ron Paul's elephantiasis afflicted nut bag. Paul has denied writing any of the above statements, but all of them appeared in newsletters baring his name and most were presented as though written by him. But wait-if you're looking for further evidence that he's a cukoo-for-White-Power-Puffs fascist that's about as far removed from libertarianism as Fred Thompson's jowls are from his skull, there's so much more! A run down of where Paul stands on issues other than the Iraq war:-Abortion: Introduced H.R. 1094, "To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception."-Stem cells: Voted against overturning Bush's veto of expanded research.-The environment: Voted to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to shield oil companies from lawsuits, against increasing gas mileage standards, and to allow new offshore drilling. Called the Kyoto accords "bad science, bad economics and bad domestic policy" and "anti-Americanism masquerading as environmentalism."-Immigration: Proposed a constitutional amendment to repeal birthright citizenship. -Civil rights: Voted against reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.-Separation of church and state: Supports a constitutional amendment allowing prayer in school, supports the 10 Commandments being displayed in courthouses, and introduced a bill which would ban federal courts from deciding issues of "religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion."-Sudan: Opposed a bill condemning the genocide in Darfur.Etc., etc.-really, I could go on, but my gorge is ready to burst like a 9th Ward levee. Consider this a public service announcement for all of those who consider themselves progressive and think Ron Paul is the bee's knees because he wants us out of Iraq. While this is true, Ron Paul also wants us out of the 21st century. Please, for the love of all that is not mouth breathing, stop supporting this guy. [1]: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
and 19 others
Comments
Lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
lazz (anonymous) says…
The materials did not end up at KU inexplicably. They were found within the Wilcox Collection of Contemporary Political Movements at Spencer Research Library; Laird Wilcox has, since he was a boy old enough to buy stamps at the post office, vigorously collected extreme political lliterature, from all variations of the politcal fringe; after he graduated from KU and began a career in construction, in the KC area, he continued, and still he carries on his life's mission. All of his materials were given to KU, where they form the heart of the Wilcox Collection, which continues to be added to by special-collections librarians and Mr. Wilcox himself.
The fact that the Ron Paul newsletters were available at KU for researchers is not an accident. This is precisely why Mr. Wilcox does what he does, and why the librarians charged with preserving and expanding the collection do what they do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laird_Wi...
http://www.lairdwilcox.com/
http://www.lib.ku.edu/paul/
http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/kc/wilcox.s...
gavon (Gavon Laessig) says…
Very good to know, lazz. Didn't mean to minimize Mr. Wilcox's contribution.
dolores2175 (April Fleming) says…
I'm confused why after this story "broke" last week there hasn't been more traction among the Paul faithful.
The funny: "Republican Rivals Share One Bond: All Losers"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01162008/...
And something Paul would probably also agree with:
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
- Mike Huckabee, campaigning in Michigan last night.
booyalab (anonymous) says…
http://www.reason.com/news/show/12442...
^
this is a fairer dissection of this subject.
I like how you attribute items like the racist quotes and the vote to allow drilling with equal confidence. No shit he doesn't want increased government regulations on oil companies. Do you even know what libertarianism entails? But if he's such a racist fascist then why and how has he built his campaign on the principles of freedom and individualism?
booyalab (anonymous) says…
and btw, if he's a racist individualist, who cares? If he was elected we'd never know for sure either way. That's the beauty of a small government-minded candidate.
dolores2175 (April Fleming) says…
From the TNR article..."Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naÃive, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time...
Paul's connections to extremism go beyond the newsletters. He has given extensive interviews to the magazine of the John Birch Society, and has frequently been a guest of Alex Jones, a radio host and perhaps the most famous conspiracy theorist in America. Jones--whose recent documentary, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, details the plans of George Pataki, David Rockefeller, and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, among others, to exterminate most of humanity and develop themselves into "superhuman" computer hybrids able to "travel throughout the cosmos"--estimates that Paul has appeared on his radio program about 40 times over the past twelve years.
Then there is Gary North, who has worked on Paul's congressional staff. North is a central figure in Christian Reconstructionism, which advocates the implementation of Biblical law in modern society... North has advocated the execution of women who have abortions and people who curse their parents."
DOTDOT (anonymous) says…
I love Charlie Daniels. And Lynyrd Skynyrd. And Molly Hatchet.
I don't know the others, but I can vouch that a couple guys in Molly Hatchet consider Ron Paul a wacko too.
But I see your point in the biblical fire with fire kinda way. Bigotry begets bigotry and all that. Praise Gavon.
1029 (anonymous) says…
bravo. the ron paul phenomenon has disgusted me in the way it has exposed the ignorant masses who had paid no attention to paul or politics in general until this last year or so. these uneducated, unworldly, newly-political pseudo hippies have no idea what paul stands for beyond his views on iraq and the war on drugs. its good that kids are taking an interest in politics, but they really should educate themselves before doing so.
matt (Matt Armstrong) says…
Like we were talking about last night, lounging upon my bear skin rugs and sipping brandy before the majestic fireplace, Ron Paul isn't anti-war, he's anti government spending of any kind. That, while including unnecessary wars, also means welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security, and many other social programs.
This is what happens when the internet gets behind a candidate. A Meme candidacy. The good thing about the internet, however, is that it's completely ineffectual in the real world. Please refer to the primary voting record for proof. Makes for good YTMNDs, though.
You care if I repost this on myspace to counter the 50 Ron Paul bulletin's that I get per day?
OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) says…
It should also be noted that in a 96 article (i think) in the Dallas Morning News, Paul defended his statements from 92 in which he wrote that 95 percent of black males in DC are criminals. So talk of him not knowing these newsletters were going out under his name is weak.
and @booyalab you wrote "But if he's such a racist fascist then why and how has he built his campaign on the principles of freedom and individualism?"
How? Are you really serious?
alm77 (anonymous) says…
He'll never win. Having said that I LOVE it when he says we don't have the money for something. The other candidates cannot grasp the concept of only spending what you have and paying back the debt you owe. If nothing else comes of the RP movement, at least that has been put out there.
OtherJoel (anonymous) says…
It seems like most people who back Ron Paul backed Nader in 2000 (and some even in 2004). That always confused me since, while they are probably in agreement on the big 2 (Iraq and drug policy), they are pretty much as far apart on the political spectrum as you can get. I guess those folks just like skinny old blowhards.
shutyourface (anonymous) says…
how in hell is he anti-war?!
if this 'man' makes office, that's all there will be. hell, that is all there could be. pipe bombs would truly make another fashion statement. even his written text on my very own personal computer smells like family sex. and not my family, or my sex.
i'm not all for spending someone's donation on childish complaints of other candidates, but someone needs to come forward with information regarding this man and open relations with his grandmother. or a five second ad with his face and a caption reading "i hate black people". ...no flags raised here. proceed.
someone in this town can make that into a shirt, right? i put $5 on it.
alm77, i'm agree to that humour. I too love when scrappy little politicians with no chance whatsoever leak some brilliant point (that usually goes unnoticed by American Public for ten to twelve years). ol' Perot was a wizard at it, and i was hoping Kucinich was going to turn into that figure as well, but his wife is too sexy, so nobody pays any attention. we're all screwed
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
I like Ron Paul because he drives all the right people crazy. Most of the left ones too, come to think of it.
ritter (anonymous) says…
"its good that kids are taking an interest in politics, but they really should educate themselves before doing so."
That statement strikes me as being completely backwards, as I'm not sure how somebody educates themselves BEFORE they are interested. Usually, I put the gear shift into drive before I start driving. I might have misunderstood the sentiment, however.
oscarfactor (anonymous) says…
Ron Paul won't finish in the Top 3 in any of the remaining primaries and will turn to dust sometime this spring. My question is: what happens to all of that Internet money that his organizations have raised?
PatrickJoseph (Patrick Giroux) says…
@oscar: Funding more newsletters?
stechell (anonymous) says…
Oh man, I wanna live in Rapetown.
gsgers (anonymous) says…
As a former card carrying member and elected official of the Libertarian party I am not surprised with these allegations against Ron Paul. During the 90s at the state level (not saying which state, but not Texas), I recall an effort to get replacements elected for several elected positions within the party itself. These people advocated violence, bigotry, religious intolerance and other values inconsistent with the basic premise of social and economic freedom for everyone. I would like to think that it may have been pressure from within the National or Texas state party that caused him to go Republican.
Thank you for the useful information on Ron Paul...one other thing I wasn't aware of and didn't suspect was that Genghis Khan would be much of a throat singer. Did he use it to get the Golden Horde to follow him like the herdsmen use it to keep their goats happy?
nicole (anonymous) says…
Ron Paul wants to get rid of the C.I.A. and The Fed. That's all I need to know. Even though he'll get shot if tries that, he'll stir up the pot and is more of a candidate for change than Hilary and Obama combined. Btw, check out Alex Jones before you talk smack on him. He makes Michael Moore look like Shawn Hannity. Alex Jones is a bad ass. ; )
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
gsgers: "I would like to think that it may have been pressure from within the National or Texas state party that caused him to go Republican."
Dude, don't be silly. Paul was a Republican all thru the 70s, when he was the first Congressman to propose term limits. He lost his seat when he opposed Phill Gramm in a senate run in 84, got the Libertarian nod in 88, then in 96 was re-elected to his old seat (with minor changes due to redistricting) as a Republican. Not only was Paul always a Republican at heart, (I say this as a registered Libertarian) he was always bigger than the entire Libertarian party and was better known even among rank-and-file Libertarians than anyone the party ran for president before or since. The idea that they somehow forced him out is ludicrous.
But I think there's one serious mistake made on this board as it relates to Paul, and that is the equating of "outside the mainstream" with crazy. Racist stuff aside (which I don't think he wrote anyway, a position with costs of its own: http://elborak.blogspot.com/2008/01/p... )
the worst thing people generally say about him with any specificity is that he is not willing to spend government money on their pet projects, like stem cell research, as is clearly demanded by the Constitution (Article II, Section 8).
Gavin is perfectly correct that 'progressives' are not going to like Paul's position on anything but the war, and he is doubtless outside the mainstream on most issues. But I do wonder how so many people who know nothing about the Fed - what it does, how its members are appointed, how it funds federal debt, what national banks preceeded it - can find Paul crazy for wishing to get rid of it.
Frankly, I think that's all the evidence of his sanity I need.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
by "so many people" I don't mean "so many people in this forum." I realize that it was not mentioned in Gavin's litany of the sins or Ron Paul, I'm just using the Fed as one example of how certain issues, confined to a small part of history and understood by few, serve as sort of a litmus test - opposition to the accepted dogma is de facto evidence of insanity. "Change" may be the mantra of this election, yet God forbid anyone try to change anything significant.
But perhaps the ultimate irony is for people to label 'fascist' a candidate who stands against perhaps the one thing fascism stood for most: elevation of the state above the individual:
"The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative."
-- Benito Mussolini
Find the candidates who propose to use the power of the government to mold individual people into a purposeful whole, to fulfill their lives with a politics of meaning, to create policies and programs that will increase their reliance on and therefore allegiance to the government, and there you will find fascism.
0sipher (anonymous) says…
Gavon:
And what's your redeeming feature? It doesn't seem to be apparent here.
DOTDOT (anonymous) says…
A mastery of the conspicuous.
DOTDOT (anonymous) says…
LB:
Your equating fascism with liberalism, (a rhetorical ballet, my friend. You look GREAT in a tutu, by the way), is as strong as the assumption that allegiance follows reliance.
Just me.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"...as strong as the assumption that allegiance follows reliance.
Dots, my love, if the assumption was not justified, no one would ever run for office on a platform of "My opponent is going to take away your Social Security."
Yet they do.
Go figure.
DOTDOT (anonymous) says…
Aahh. Short sighted self involvement blinded by campaign sloganeering could certainly translate to allegiance, I guess. I thought that was called stupidity. Oh wait. It is. I see your point.
Thanks for reminding me of a wayward thought this election year. I haven't much heard the phrase "family values" this time around.
Must be all the coffins.
smerdyakov (anonymous) says…
El_B: what are the positions you find redeeming about Ron Paul? You clearly approve of his Libertarian leanings, but that's all I can really gather from your defense of him.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
As far as his major policy positions - elimination of the Fed, the income tax, transfer payments, nafta/wto, and foreign military bases - I am generally in agreement with all of them because we share the same underlying ideology..
Where we have disagreements are on smaller issues (e.g. his hypocrisy on earmarks, his support for the 10 commandments in courthouses*). I am also a lot more pro-immigration (and pro-immigrant) than he is. But little issues are little issues, and I'd trade them all to abolish the Fed. In a heartbeat.
* If what is written above is in fact the case. Based on the misuse (or at least malattribution) of Capt. John Parker's quote from the Battle of Lexington above, I wonder. I certainly don't see any stone tablets on his campaign website.
BaneMaler (anonymous) says…
Took you all a while to finally do a hit piece on Ron Paul. To bad the story is about as old as the newsletters you think you're hanging him by. It is sad to see so much hate and disdain for a true candidate for the people. If you even took a second to hear him speak and listen to the countless times he's attacked the people destroying this country like a founding father would, you might just let go of this shallow grudge of yours. Ultimately this comes down to world views. I'd ask who you think is a more appropriate candidate in this time of American turmoil, where our dollar is worth about as much as the paper the ink is printed on but, I'm afraid I already know the answer. Why not note the countless times he has defended race, in fact linking the real race issue today to the war on drugs? Why not point out his backing by the Texas head of the NAACP who denounced these claims? Maybe even mention the fact that he still runs in Texas every term with this same tired newsletter story that comes out and he is popularly elected again and again. Of course that would be fair and balanced and stories these days are often neither of the two. Consider why all the war mongers in the debates try to silence him and chuckle at his idea of a conservative government. Could it be that he's not in the same pockets as they are? Maybe this is why his people call his campaign the Revolution and he draws republicans, independents, and as you have most certainly found democrats to his ranks. The fact is we are educated on the issues, we follow all forms of media like hawks. Anything you think you have dug up or discovered is old news to this campaign and we hold strong in the character of our candidate. The candidate that wants to return power to the people and not take it and promise them "hope". Ron Paul, the only candidate who has a message of prosperity, freedom, and peace. Finally, thanks for the Lawrence edition of Ron Paul censorship which avoids real issues and is ignorant to the principles of the actual candidate. I'm sure you'll find open arms when you apply for a position at Fox News.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"Could it be that he's not in the same pockets as they are?"
Dude, I don't think this line of argumentation* gets anywhere, even though it is the most popular among Paul supporters. The truth is that there is one significant vision of America, and then there is the minor one that Ron Paul promotes.
The significant one is the progressive, imperialist one of the major parties - the one concerned foremost with national greatness and influence - and the one that says that the American government exists to protect American soil, period. There is the one that is concerned with shaping the individual American and the one concerned with protecting him from force and otherwise letting him alone.
That both parties promote the former is inarguable. John McCain and Mike Huckabee, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, all have an opinion on what "we" ought to do about Iraq and Pakistan and Darfur and North Korea. That their solutions differ is less important than the fact that they all have solutions that they wish to impose using American guns and American money**. Ron Paul's 'solution' was best explained by the founding fathers who asserted that a free people does not go overseas looking for monsters to destroy.
It's perfectly fair to point out what the logical and historical effects such collectivism and interventionism brings (inflation, poverty, continual war), to attempt to educate people on the benefits of liberty. But to assert that all politicians but yours are bought and paid for is pretty silly, not only because it's unprovable but because it's untrue.
It is a bane of mankind we judge our leaders by their ability to 'raise' Americans to some great collective purpose, whether it's a war on terror or a war on poverty. For all the anti-war noise we hear today, it's still clear that they believe that continual war is the moral purpose of a people, molding them into a purposeful whole by giving them some important task to pursue and pay for together; they just wish to wage war on different immaterial enemies than our current leadership.
The ideal of freedom is different: it is the belief that individuals and families peacefully pursuing their own happiness is the highest good a people can expect and therefore a government can protect. To make the race about Ron Paul and his alleged superhuman virtue is to miss the forest of liberty for the trees of personality.
This race is not about a man, as Dr. Paul himself says, it is about an idea. But if people do not believe the idea, the man can do nothing that will last. If people do not want freedom more than national greatness they will never see peace, just a series of unwinnable, perpetual wars on abstractions that will destroy any peace they could have had.
* known in the vernacular as "poisoning the well."
** none of which are likely to work today any more than imposed solutions have worked in the past, but that's a separate issue.
BaneMaler (anonymous) says…
If there is anything "hopeful" in this campaign it is the fact that the ideas of these leaders will not be lost on the youth of this country, at least for the most part. It is foolish to believe that the latest movement will stop with Paul. In fact there are already plans to expand the march into other realms of the political spectrum. Many have committed to being the message and are running for local government (students here in Lawrence). Some have even begun the process for the House and Senate. It is interesting that many think this will end here but again, this is only the beginning of something great.
smerdyakov (anonymous) says…
El_B- I gotta say, your quoting of "Dr. Paul" lends him some creepy, messianic quality...like he's somehow the cure for our ailing society.
That said, I sincerely appreciate what you've added to this discussion, though I'm still far from convinced that Ron Paul can be taken seriously beyond the Libertarian crowd and those so utterly disillusioned with the two main parties that they're susceptible to a reasonable sounding demagogue.
I agree that the U.S. gov't has no business in Iraq. But it would be irresponsible, unethical, immoral, inhumane, unconscionable... to withdraw now and hope for the best behind our own borders. Same as as was to do nothing about situations like Darfur (whatever the reason, including your argument that we're just holding fast to the highest ideal of freedom). I don't see how doing nothing about genocide outside our borders is any different than, say, someone staying safely holed up in their house while someone is raped in broad daylight across the street. Maybe that's a poor analogy, but I hope you get my point...
What would take the place of the income tax?
And wouldn't you say the Fed has justified its existence in the last few days?
DOTDOT (anonymous) says…
"...the fact that the ideas of these leaders will not be lost on the youth of this country..."
"...there are already plans to expand the march..."
"...believe that the latest movement will stop with Paul."
"Many have committed to being the message..."
What ideas?
What march?
What movement?
What message?
Seriously. I need something to think about besides who is better looking. Clinton or McCain.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
smerdyakov writes: "your quoting of 'Dr. Paul' lends him some creepy, messianic quality...like he's somehow the cure for our ailing society."
No, it's just that, well, he's a doctor. I guess my whole comment explaining that he's not a messiah was too vague? Those who are looking for a messiah in Ron Paul are going to be very disappointed, which is why I try to go out of my way to lower expectations such as exhibited by BaneMaler.
"And wouldn't you say the Fed has justified its existence in the last few days?"
Dude, you have obviously never read my blog*. With his transparent panic Bernanke has sacrificed what little value the dollar has left, leaving the Fed's dual mandate (maximum sustainable growth and price stability) in tatters.
The Fed never had a mandate to save the stock market, especially when it's not even in a technical bear market, but it's obvious that Bernanke is now taking his cues from futures traders**.
We might as well have Jim Cramer in charge of the Fed, at least he'd be entertaining. Not that 600-point intraday swings on the Dow and $50 intraday swings in gold aren't entertaining in a Space Shuttle Challenger sort of way.
But on the matter of foreign meddling, if we can't get out of Iraq, can we at least get out of Germany, Japan, and Italy? I think they actually gave up like 70 years ago. How about South Korea? That would be a good enough start for me.
* Which my remaining reader (Hi, Dots!) will attest has pretty much been all Fed all the time. And none of it has been complimentary.
** and a President in search of a legacy that is not spelled "HOOVER."
smerdyakov (anonymous) says…
I know he's a former doctor. Aside from the fact that people haven't generally made a habit of calling former-practitioners-turned-politicians Dr. Soandso (Howard Dean, Bill Frist, et al), my point is it /sounds/ creepy, whether it's technically warranted or not. But maybe you're being disingenuous...
I went back to your blog and couldn't find the word "Fed" in your last many blogs... please post a link. Anyway, I'm not sure "transparent panic" equates to markets worldwide reversing course.
In the same way I agreed with you on ending U.S. imperialism when it comes to Iraq-style conquests (preemptive or otherwise), I agree that we should reduce our presence elsewhere (Germany, Japan, Italy). But you've not responded to my main point regarding cases like Darfur... if you can't speak for how Dr. Paul might respond to genocide abroad, I'd at least be curious what you think.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"I went back to your blog and couldn't find the word "Fed""
Try this:
http://elborak.blogspot.com/search?q=...
"But maybe you're being disingenuous..."
That's always a safe assumption. Especially since I'm obviously a closet worshipper of the man:
http://elborak.blogspot.com/2007/08/h...
"But you've not responded to my main point regarding cases like Darfur..."
If you find in the United States Constitution anywhere that American Troops are to forcibly stop other governments from killing their own people, then I will agree to go. If you think that other governments should be forced to stop, strap on a gun and go stop them yourself.
You cannot say on one hand that we have no business in Iraq and yet have to be in Darfur. Saddam's government killed his own people as well. And yet as we see in Iraq, in order to stop the killing you have to disassemble the government, and as soon as you do, you have created a stateless entity in which violence becomes ubiquitous.
The problem is that actions have consequences. It is naive in the extreme to believe the government of the United States can simply march in where people are being killed and make those governments stop without inflicting even greater damage on the people who live there. Before one brings up WWII, remember that we killed 2,000,000 Japanese civilians to win it. And that excludes those who starved to death in the aftermath.
smerdyakov (anonymous) says…
That all makes perfect sense if you're operating from a premise that we need a Rule and then we need to adhere to it rigidly despite inclinations to make seemingly rational exceptions. Because we don't trust government or ourselves or whatever the reason is...
I don't think the Constitution requires literal reading any more than the Bible. Whether it's politics or religion, I'm always suspicious of someone who tells me I need to surrender my intellect for absolutism. I don't mean to accuse you, El_B, of anything... I'm just sayin. Seriously though, I'm not pointing fingers, just making a point about your Constitution remark.
To return to my original analogy regarding Darfur etc, the Constitution or any law otherwise doesn't require me to leave the safety of my home to stop a rape in progress across the street. But you'd be hard pressed to convince me that I'm not morally obliged to do so. But perhaps you think governments' actions should not be based on morals?
(I can see that I'm potentially steering this into a discussion on moral relativism, but that's not my intention)
Thanks for the link to your blog... you're right, I haven't read that, just your blog here.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"...require me to leave the safety of my home to stop a rape in progress across the street"
But that's exactly the problem: you are framing the debate as one of morals and intentions rather than one of practicality and reality. Put it this way: I know you would wish to stop the rape. Would you attempt to do so if the only tool you had to do the job was a hand grenade?
smerdyakov (anonymous) says…
I think I see your point... that unintended (or even probable) outcomes could be worse than if we just let things shake out the way they will on their own. Right? (Except when it comes to defending the Homeland- Numero Uno -which is the primary reason for government.)
If that's right, I guess that's where we part ways in thinking, and why I'd never support Ron Paul. To me that's a borderline nihilistic view of life.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"If that's right...To me that's a borderline nihilistic view of life."
I think that's exactly correct. I could not have summarized it better myself. Except that it's merely a view of government, not of life.
DOTDOT (anonymous) says…
Crap. Now I have to go and google nihilistic.
smerdyakov (anonymous) says…
Interesting ... I'm curious how this life v. government worldview teases apart. Where we happen to be born (say, in the U.S. vs. Darfur) determines a great deal of our lot in life; seems to me, we then are left to view that lot as either a sort of right or as an obligation. Unless loving thy "neighbor" stops at the current national frontier, I don't see how a view of government can be so different from a view of life. Maybe I'm making some logical leaps though...
tribalzendancer (Tim Hjersted) says…
Glad to see a critical dissection of Ron Paul on Lawrence.com. Found some good videos related to such politics on this website >> www.filmsforaction.org
word.
booyalab (anonymous) says…
Chris Tackett: "How? Are you really serious?"
Yeah. Let's have a look at the definition of fascism. According to merriam-webster it's a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual. So, unless my reasoning fails me, that philosophy would be diametrically opposed to individualism, which exalts the individual above nation or race.
Like I said in my next post, it is possible, I suppose, that he's a racist individualist. But his live and let live attitude would prevent him from imposing those views in the form of racist laws or what have you. To me, and probably most of his informed supporters, his opinions on black people are largely irrelevant.
editer (Phil Cauthon) says…
This letter to the editor was submitted by Michael Hannah in response to the above blog:
(Part 1 of 3)
Freedom: Dr. Ron Paul's prescription for America
Over the last few months I have watched the Ron Paul political smear unfold with incredible disgust. The smear, which had been refuted years prior in several of Paul's Congressional re-election campaigns, appeared, this time as Paul has been out-fundraising the establishment candidates at record rates.
This rehashed Paul smear began with the neo-conservative and liberal blog websites. Later it was picked up and circulated through the establishment media, being yet again refuted by Ron Paul with gusto, saying he did not write or endorse the comments in question. Finally, after the smear had been beaten through the spin cycle and Paul's popularity continued to soar, it emerged as a blatantly flagrant hit piece in lawrence.com last week.
Therefore it seems that yet again this smear needs to be refuted. However, the readers of this publication also deserve to read the other side of Ron Paul and modern "Libertarianism" that is not portrayed in the mass media, or even the "Mass. media" for that matter.
Ron Paul has worked to fight racism his entire career by attempting to break down the ideology of collectivism, which breeds racist behaviors. Paul has said, "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism."
"The true antidote to racism is liberty. In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty."
Collectivism has been unknowingly ingrained in the universal consciousness of the
Post-Great War western society by the Fabian Socialists, as well as the Fascists. Collectivism runs contradictory to the ideals of personal liberty granted to us by the Constitution, which are upheld in the contemporary movement called the "Ron Paul Revolution."
editer (Phil Cauthon) says…
(Part 2 of 3)
Ron Paul has continuously argued for all Americans to be treated as free individuals, instead of members of special interest groups. He believes that politicians should not be using the government to grant certain rights to groups over others. This position is appealing to many minorities and others who are tired of being treated as a member of a group, rather than as an individual whose rights are protected no matter who they may be.
Nelson Linder, the NAACP President of the Austin chapter, has known Dr. Paul for over 20 years and in a recent interview completely dismissed any allegations that he was a "racist." Linder went on to say about Paul, "if you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context. What he's saying is really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear."
Walter E. Williams is a renowned economist who is African American and has backed Ron Paul for President saying "if the framers of the Constitution were somehow to come back, Ron Paul is one of possibly only three people in Congress that they'd even talk to." Paul himself has mentioned Williams on several occasions as someone he would choose for a top cabinet position if elected, perhaps even Vice President. I ask you, would a "white supremacist" support an African American for the nation's second highest office, one heart beat away from the Presidency, or any cabinet position?
In the hit piece last week Ron Paul was ignorantly dubbed a "Fascist." But in reality Fascism is an ideology directly opposed to that of Dr. Paul's beliefs. Fascism is centered on the idea of the State being more important than the individual in a society. Fascism advocates destroying personal liberties. The combination of corporate special interests and big central government are essential to Fascism, yet again these ideas are in opposition of Paul's ideology.
editer (Phil Cauthon) says…
(Part 3 of 3)
Dr. Paul is a rare voice of reason on the critical key issues of our time. Not only was he against the war from the beginning, but practices non-interventionist foreign policy, which is vastly different than either isolationism or the current imperialism offered by the other candidates today. He understands the recent financial crisis and the blame the Federal Reserve justly deserves. The historic dollar crash and immense credit/debt fiasco are directly due to the government's deficit spending and the Fed's policies of fiat currency, which causes inflation and cripples the poor. This is partly why Paul correctly argues for a return to a gold-backed currency and balanced budgets. He has been influenced by the Austrian School of Economics and its great thinkers such as Ludwig von Mises, giving Paul the understanding of the central bank's manipulation of America's economy for the wealthy elite.
Paul has led the way on abolishing the unconstitutional income tax, which will return workers their right to keep the wages of labor. He realizes that government debt is a tax on the people and that we cannot continue to rely on foreign countries to hold our debt so we may live beyond our means.
He is fighting to keep America's sovereignty against the elite globalists, who are represented by the rest of the presidential field. He has always been against globalist institutions such as the wto, nafta, ftaa, spp, and the emerging North American Union which threatens the democratic republic.
Paul argues practical energy ideas such as the legalization of hemp for domestic independence and removing tax subsidies for the wealthy oil companies. He has always been against the Patriot Act, and now fights the Real ID and Homegrown Terrorism Act. If these are the ideas of a "crazy bastard", please count me in too.