When the story about the racist content of some of the newsletters published under his name first became public this week, Ron Paul’s campaign issued this statement:
“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.
(…)
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
There are problems with that defense, but it appears that the real issue is even deeper.
Matt Welch, the editor of Reason, has gone back to see what Paul said about the newsletters back in 1996, when they became an issue in his effort to return to the United States Congress, and the news isn’t good. The Paul campaign was singing a very different tune back then, and there wasn’t even the suggestion that Paul wasn’t the one responsible for the content of the newsletters.
Consider this from the Houston Chronicle dated May 23, 1996:
Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.”
[...]
Paul also wrote that although “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.
Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”
A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.
Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said.
Or this from the Dallas Morning News dated May 22, 1996:
Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are “semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
He also wrote that black teenagers can be “unbelievably fleet of foot.” [...]
Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas’ 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.
“It’s typical political demagoguery,” he said. “If people are interested in my character … come and talk to my neighbors.” [...]
According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.”
Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter’s toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff. [...]
Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]
“If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man’s character, what kind of a world do you live in?” Dr. Paul asked.
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.
Draw your own conclusions, I suppose. But there seems to be some inconsistency between what was said in 1996 and what is being said today.
January 11th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
When Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray published The Bell Curve, many academics decried that the book was racist when the reality was that the authors simply discussed racial differences in an honest manner.
Dr. Paul has been consistent in his open and honest discussions about problems that we face. If you do not see the consistency of his open and forthright manner, then I think you lack the necessary analytical skills, because the fact is, Dr. Paul is still expressing the key themes that government should be the enabler of self reliance, rather than promoting the plantation mindset with big brother government as our modern day “massa.”
You have continued to spout this nonsense and ignored the fact that Dr. Paul’s straight forward and honest dealings have won him the support of the largest number of African American and Latino volunteers, among all of the Republican candidates.
You can keep race-baiting, but clearly the African American community and Latino citizens are not buying your slander. Why don’t you try to discuss Dr. Paul’s writings and his current speeches in their full context? I guess that would require you to have some modicum of ethics.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
This type of media-induced smear of an honorable statesman will not work. Too many people are waking up to what is actually going on in this country. “We The People” are no longer going to allow the media to pick and choose our presidential candidates.
We have found the courage to stand up for what’s right and have been empowered by Ron Paul’s message of freedom and liberty. The Establishment should be afraid…be very afraid.
January 13th, 2008 at 11:59 am
are you people retarded? he basically admitted those were his writings before coming up with “ghostwriter did it.” is that someone who is consistent and honest? is that someone who you think will save america?
wake up, this is just sad now
January 13th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Actual writing by Ron Paul on racism
A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.
The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.
Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.
It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.
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. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence – not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
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.
January 13th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
He explained why he denied it in 1996 in a 2001 interview with the Texas Monthly:
http://thestressblog.com/2007/05/22/ron-paul-is-not-a-racist/
“They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that’s too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.’”
January 13th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
please add that paul admitted in his wolf blitzer interview this past week that he did indeed write for the newsletter on occasion.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:53 am
I agree with Saul above.
First Ron Paul says he wrote the articles (1996), then, 5 years later (2001), he says he didn’t. Pretty weak for him to say his campaign aides made him lie in 1996.
Regarding the Ron Paul article cited above by Rand Thinker, what’s MOST interesting about the article is the part that Rand Thinker left out. The article he quotes is entitled, “What Really Divides Us”, by Ron Paul (lewrockwell.com, 2002).
The article is written in defense of Senator Trent Lott after Lott’s comment that we’d all have been better off now if more people had supported Strom Thurmond’s 1948 run for president. Strom Thurmond ran on a blatantly segregationist platform – a platform that declared in part, “We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race”. During the campaign, Thurmond said, “All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army, cannot force the negro into our homes, our schools, and our churches.”
Ron Paul’s rationale for defending Trent Lott’s statement is “states’ rights”, and Ron Paul claims that: “The real reason liberals hate the concept of states’ right has nothing to do with racism, but rather reflects a hostility towards anything that would act as a limit on the power of the federal government.”
In 2007, Ron Paul wrote another article called “Government and Racism”, where he uses many of the exact words as in the previous article, but changes the topic to a defense of Don Imus after Imus’s statements about the women’s basketball team. Remember? Imus said, “Those are some nappy headed hoes (whores).”
In this article, Ron Paul claims it’s the people coming to the women’s defense who are the true racists. According to Ron Paul: “The young women on the basketball team Mr. Imus insulted are over 18 and can speak for themselves. It’s disconcerting to see third parties become involved and presume to speak collectively for minority groups. It is precisely this collectivist mindset that is at the heart of racism”.
I guess Ron Paul didn’t notice that Don Imus is over 18. Oh well.
This time, Ron Paul’s rationale for his defense of racist remarks is “free speech.”
I think maybe one of the scariest things about Ron Paul is how so many of his supporters are unwilling to be critical of him in any way at all.