Yesterday, as voters were flocking to the polls in New Hampshire, a story broke that brought up once again the uncomfortable relationship between Ron Paul and people who advance racist ideas and wacko conspiracy theories. It’s something that has come up before, as I’ve noted here, here, here, here, and here, but the shear breadth of the article, and the evidence it brought forward, was just overwhelming.
The article itself, Angry White Man by James Kirchick:
Paul’s newsletters have carried different titles over the years–Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report–but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Air Force surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter.
And, some of the content that’s appeared in those letters over the years is, to put it mildly pretty shocking:
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, a newsletter 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. The same year, King was described as “a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”
While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled “The Duke’s Victory,” a newsletter celebrated Duke’s 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. “Duke lost the election,” it said, “but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment.” In 1991, a newsletter asked, “Is David Duke’s new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?” The conclusion was that “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.” Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.
And there’s more where that come. Now, it’s fairly clear that this point that Paul didn’t write this stuff himself and that it was written by a staff member whose identity has yet to be revealed. Nonetheless, the fact that it appeared in newsletters that bore his name raises questions in and of itself. At the very least, it raises questions about Paul’s judgment in allowing such garbage to be published in his name.
Politically, this story doesn’t matter that much anymore. Paul is not going to be President, and after his showing in yesterday’s primary, he’s unlikely to be much of a factor in the race after today. Nonetheless, the association of the man that most people will think of when they think of libertarians with racism and conspiracy theories and admiration for the Confederacy raises troubling questions that every libertarian will have to answer for themselves.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
That Kirchick bothered to parrot those shop worn slanders against Ron Paul only demonstrates that Ron Paul is perceived as a real threat by the Nixonian NeoCons, even more than before.
The fact that Ron Paul sponsored a newsletter where all sorts of views were freely published, since the 1970s proves that he is a practitioner of our basic human right of Freedom of Speech, and nothing else. That some of the passages in his newsletter criticized bad behavior by various individuals or groups (ex. LA rioters) only shows that his publication was used to openly discuss the affairs of the times, without the traditional media filter.
Having lived for a while in the adjacent Congressional District to Ron Paul, I can say that the local political environment is very, very Conservative and traditional church values are the overwhelming norm. His constituents are straight talkers and believe in the premise that Americans should all pull their share of the load. What Ron Paul has always stood for is the basic premise that by your deeds, you shall be known. He is unafraid to speak out about corruption, or misconduct, even when the figure who is corrupt is a media darling such as “Marchin Looten King” or media pariah, “W” Bush.
An aside: There is no such thing as a “Neo-Confederate.” This term was established by the Clinton Administration and the “Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) with the hope of lumping Confederate Heritage groups in with various groups (like Neo-Nazi) that were considered by the Administration to be “racist.” The Confederate Heritage groups, by the way, have members from all races and creeds, and exist solely for the preservation of Confederate monuments and a truthful telling of the history of that period. They are most often targeted by the left as a way to help stimulate supporters of the left to donate money.
Ron Paul used his newsletter to openly discuss all sorts of topics of the day. I doubt that any publisher would be described as agreeing with every phrase published in their magazine or newspaper, but I do believe the examples presented in these articles about the Ron Paul newsletter only confirm that Ron Paul, as a publisher, demonstrated his commitment to allowing all views to be heard, especially those views typically suppressed by main stream media organs like Kirchick’s, New Republic.
I support Ron Paul and I support an end to this age of “political correctness.” I prefer an America where all citizens are free to discuss issues without fear of “Big Brother” government or media, pronouncements of, “You can’t say that…”
Ron Paul’s newsletter should be followed as an example. Let all opinions and ideas be heard and let the bright light of the public square shine upon those ideas and allow the People to judge each idea, opinion or accusations of corruption, based on their own merits.