[Peace-discuss] Re: Ron Paul & GroundHog Day
Morton K. Brussel
brussel at uiuc.edu
Sat Feb 2 11:27:48 CST 2008
> 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?
It might be helpful if the Berlet article were more specific
regarding the right wing groups supporting Paul.
--mkb
On Feb 1, 2008, at 11:21 PM, Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list