[Peace-discuss] Re: Ron Paul & GroundHog Day

Fri Feb 1 23:21:51 CST 2008

Thanks for the context.

Yes, it seems the quote I was referring to about the 'inefficient' police arresting less than the
number of actual black criminals was in fact published in one of the newsletters that Paul says he
didn't write.  I wasn't clear that the statement was part of the disputed newsletter stuff when I
had read about his denials, but apparently it is.  So at least he denies it.  I'm not sure it
entirely settles the question of his actual position on some of these issues - tho he seems to
claim his 'Libertarian' views make him anti-racist automatically.  

And there's still the matter of his views on citizenship for certain people (children of recent
immigrants) born in the US, welfare rights, etc.  But I suppose some people might not call that
'racial politics'.

Anyway, here's an interesting take on this debate (maybe a little clumsy here and there, but worth
thinking about, in my opinion, if you read it to the end):

Ron Paul and the Bigots: Plain Talk or Plausible Deniability?
By Chip Berlet, Huffington Post, January 10, 2008 

Ron Paul wants us to believe that he wasn't paying attention when the newsletters that went out
under his name for twenty years carried articles that were racist, homophobic, and antisemitic. 
This story has circulated before; however when The New Republic posted a story on Tuesday
detailing some of the nastier morsels with extensive direct quotes, Ron Paul responded:
"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or
have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts....I
have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my
name."
Well, no, Paul really hasn't taken any responsibility. Paul so far refuses to name the author of
the turgid bigotry in his newsletter, and Paul's responses over the years are less apologetic than
non-denial denials. He didn't write it. He didn't know. He wasn't paying attention. Don't blame
him. 

Who else is there to blame? 

And what about the overall slant of Paul's newsletters and public pronouncements? For decades Ron
Paul has been promoting bogus right-wing theories about a conspiracy to erode America's national
sovereignty--a conspiracy supposedly involving the United Nations, the Council on Foreign
Relations, and Trilateral Commission. These are the same allegations spread by the armed militia
movement of the 1990s. Paul's current claims about a proposed North American Union and a so-called
"NAFTA Superhighway" from Mexico to Canada echo pet conspiracy theories of dubious right-wing
information sources such as World Net Daily and Human Events. 
Paul denies he promotes these conspiracy theories, even though they are essentially identical to
right-wing conspiracy theories circulated since the 1950s. In the 1960s the font of such New World
Order conspiracy theories was the John Birch Society, an ultra-conservative organization who today
still carries forward the proposition (first articulated in the late 1790s) that a secret society
called the Illuminati are constructing a One World Government and manipulating elected officials
in the United States. 
Paul, no surprise, has become a hero to legions of conspiracy theorists, including some for whom
White supremacy, homophobia, and antisemitism are as American as apple pie. Organized racist
groups use generic conspiracy theories as an entry point for recruitment. Since the 1800s, claims
of sinister plots for global subversion have been interwoven with lurid antisemitic stories of
Jewish plots for global conquest. 
It is not fair to suggest that Ron Paul is part of any of these bigoted movements, but it is more
than fair to ask Paul why he lacks the common decency and common sense to quickly return a
campaign donation from a notorious neonazi. It is also fair to ask Paul to explain in more detail
how his views about the covert plans of global elites to destroy U.S. sovereignty differs from the
generic or antisemitic New World Order conspiracy theories easily found on the Web. What are
Paul's specific sources of information for his claims? When Paul provides his sources we can
compare them to the theories promulgated by the John Birch Society--as well as groups with more
bigoted baggage. 
The rhetoric of Ron Paul over the past decade has been interpreted by some constituencies as coded
support for bigoted ideas. This use of coded language in public debate is nothing new. As a
Presidential candidate, George Wallace refined the art of coded White supremacist appeals to a
high political art form. Wallace knew he was speaking in code, as did President Richard Nixon who
adapted the Wallace rhetoric for the Republican's racist "Southern Strategy." Does Paul ever
wonder why ultra-right crackpots, conspiracy theorists, bigots, and neonazis champion his cause?
Does Paul not realize his rhetoric tends to support bigots unless it is clarified?
Why is it so hard for Paul to see that his name is being bandied about by bigots who suggest that
Paul holds beliefs that he claims he does not hold? Why doesn't Paul realize he has an obligation
to forcefully distance himself from such claims? This isn't about guilt by association; this is
about a major political candidate standing up and setting the record straight using clear
language. Otherwise it gives the appearance that Paul is seeking public plausible deniability,
while continuing to court the very constituencies he suggests he rejects.

--- "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:

> The context was an interview on "Situation Room," on CNN January 10, regarding 
> the newsletters discussed in an article in The New Republic.  Some of
> Paul's comments:
> 
> On the newsletters: "It's been rehashed for a long time and it's coming up now
> for political reasons. But everybody in my district knows I didn't write them.
> And I don't speak like that. Nobody has ever heard me say anything like that.
> I've been reelected time and time again. So everybody knows I don't participate
> in that type of language. But the point is when you bring the question up you're
> really saying, you're a racist or are you a racist? And the answer is no. I'm
> not a racist. As a matter of fact Rosa Parks is one of my heroes. Martin Luther
> King is a hero. Because they practiced the libertarian principle of civil
> disobedience, nonviolence. ... What's really interesting, though, and this might
> be behind it because as a Republican candidate I'm getting the most support from
> black voters and now that has to be undermined. And I do this because I attack
> two wars that blacks are suffering from. One, the war overseas. And all wars
> minorities suffer the most. So they join me in this position I have against the
> war in Iraq. And what about the war on drugs? What other candidates will stand
> up and say I will pardon all blacks, all whites, everybody who were convicted
> for non-violent drug acts and drug crimes."
> 
> Asked how this got in his newsletters: "I have no idea. Have you ever heard a
> publisher of a magazine not knowing every single thing? The editor is
> responsible for the daily activities. People came and gone. And there were
> people who were hired. I don't know any of their names. I absolutely honestly do
> not know who wrote those things. But I do know there was a transition, there
> were changes around and, to me, it's been rehashed. This is the politics of it
> all. If it were important enough, why didn't the people in my district who have
> heard this for these 10 years or so that this came up and people believe me. Why
> don't you believe me and just say look, it's in there. It's bad. I recognize
> that. I had a moral responsibility. But that doesn't mean that you can
> indirectly charge me as being a racist. That's what is being done, and yet, I am
> the most anti- racist because I don't see people in collective groups."
> 
> Asked if he read the newsletters: "Not back then. There may have been at times
> that I would. At times. I was in a medical practice. I traveled a lot. I was
> doing speeches around the country. Very frequently I never did see these. A lot
> of the things you just read, I wouldn't have recognized them."
> 
> http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/01/hotline_after_d_323.html
> 
> Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> > Seems a very defensive statement, altho the positions he takes below are of
> > course very good.
> > 
> > What, could I ask, was the context of this statement?  Was Mr. Paul by chance
> > being asked about his statments/positions that raised the question in the
> > first place, e.g. the 'inefficient' police and the allegedly 'low' rate of
> > incarceration of black Americans, immigration and citizenship, social welfare
> > (what's left of it)?
> > 
> > If not, has he at least repudiated this garbage elsewhere?  We're desperate
> > for anti-war candidates at the moment, but let's not get so desperate that we
> > turn a blind eye to a candidate's flaws.
> > 
> > Ricky
> > 
> > --- "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Ron Paul's "racial politics," the "Anti-war Anti-Racism Effort" might
> >> note his statement on CNN three weeks ago:
> >> 
> >> "I attack two wars that blacks are suffering from.  One, the war overseas. 
> >> In all wars minorities suffer the most.  So they join me in this position I
> >> have against the war in Iraq.  And what about the war on drugs?  What other
> >> candidate will stand up and say I will pardon all blacks, all whites,
> >> everybody who was convicted for non-violent drug acts and drug crimes.  And
> >> this is where the real discrimination is.  If you want to look for
> >> discrimination, it's the judicial system.  So I am the antiracist because I
> >> am the only candidate, Republican or Democrat, who wants to protect the
> >> minority against these vicious drug laws."
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> >>> Of course we can't limit the signs people bring.  We never have.  Ever.
> >>> I think it might be time to dissolve AWARE and start over if we did.
> >>> 
> >>> Of course, IF it were to turn out that Ron Paul signs were numerous enuf
> >>> to create the appearance that we all support his campaign, that would be 
> >>> unfortunate and grossly inaccurate.  Most of us don't, because of his
> >>> racial politics or his 'Libertarian' economic views or both.
> >>> 
> >>> I suggest everyone who's so inclined bring signs representing the
> >>> candidate of their choice (even if he/she has dropped out, or signs like
> >>> "Vote Green," or how about signs that say what you really feel :-)
> >>> 
> >>> "Vote for who you want, then
> >>>> RAISE HELL<
> >>> until they get OUT OF IRAQ!"
> >>> 
> >>> "Throw the bums out!  End the War!"
> >>> 
> >>> "Democracy is NOT just voting!"
> >>> 
> >>> "Our choices for voting SUCK.  The only choice in Iraq: OUT NOW!"
> >>> 
> >>> I'm sure others can come up with better ones. Ricky
> 
> 

      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 