Ron Paul and the Allegations of Racism

[ludlow]

Brutha: I merged the topic of Ron Pauls Allegations of Racismn into this thread from multiple other threads in which it was discussed before.

Just wanted to post in this thread too the excellent TNR expose of Paul's endorsement of racism and homophobia.

Angry White Man

I'm genuinely saddened to see that a forum populated by so many conscious and growth-oriented people seems to have a disproportionate number of Ron Paul supporters. Please reconsider your support in the light of James Kirchick's discoveries.

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by ludlow

Just wanted to post in this thread too the excellent TNR expose of Paul's endorsement of racism and homophobia.
Angry White Man

It's not an expose, this information has been around for decades. It was used against him when he ran for Congress back in the mid 90s as well.

Read Ron Paul's response to that piece: Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters — Ron Paul 2008

Read Ron Paul's piece on MLK:
Ron Paul on MLK, Jr.'s Legacy of Freedom — Ron Paul 2008

Furthermore, an NACCP President has known Ron Paul for 20 years and came out and declares that Ron Paul isn't a racist: NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist

Basically what happened is that other people wrote and managed Ron Paul's newsletter. Ron Paul was careless about his oversight of the newsletter. I do not believe that Ron Paul is a homophobic, nor a racist.

I'm genuinely saddened to see that a forum populated by so many conscious and growth-oriented people seems to have a disproportionate number of Ron Paul supporters. Please reconsider your support in the light of James Kirchick's discoveries.

Ron Paul is for increasing our freedom, and our ability to take actions without the overpressing restriction of government. Conscious and growth-oriented people want to have the freedom to take actions they feel are best for them, so it's natural that a large number of us are pro-Ron Paul as he is the most pro-Freedom candidate out there, and the only one who will get government out of our growth as individuals.

I truly do not understand pro-conscious people and pro-growth people who want to vote candidates in who want to increase the size of our government, restrict the freedom of our people, and attack more countries overseas. That's one thing I find sad about Erin's support of Obama who wants to vastly increase the government's meddling into health care.

[Gabo]

The New Republic has purposefully slandered Ron Paul.

He did not write any of those articles, and has made that very clear in the past. Opponents of his message always bring those same papers up, because they can't point out any real faults in Paul's campaign for liberty and freedom. Paul has apologized for not monitoring his newsletter staff more closely, but he cannot reverse the accidents of the past.

Anyone that understands Ron Paul's message of personal freedom would know that he is the only candidate in the race without racial prejudices. Racism is derived from believing that people are parts of a collective. Only Ron Paul believes that individuals are more important than groups. The real racists are those that demand certain groups receive special treatment on the basis of their skin color, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, or other group identity.

[Brutha]

Anyone that understands Ron Paul's message of personal freedom would know that he is the only candidate in the race without racial prejudices.

That is a cognitive bias. Just because you agree with one message you can't conclude from that that the person holds views similar to yourself in other areas. Those newsletter writers who wrote the articles probably have also a strong belief in "freedom".

Paul has apologized for not monitoring his newsletter staff more closely, but he cannot reverse the accidents of the past.

He could. He could make a speech against the war on drugs (that he is against) and attack it for being racist. He is free to take that side of the debate.
That said I don't think that he is racist.

I truly do not understand pro-conscious people and pro-growth people who want to vote candidates in who want to increase the size of our government, restrict the freedom of our people, and attack more countries overseas. That's one thing I find sad about Erin's support of Obama who wants to vastly increase the government's meddling into health care.

First of all, when you try to see the good in everything (which is one of the things being conscious is about) you don't have to automatically assume that goverment is bad.
I think there are two perspectives to look at health care.
One is to see the right to receive health care regardless of your ecomonic situation (poor people shouldn't die because they can't pay for the medicine) which leads you to favor public health care and on the other side the freedom to have total control of your health yourself.
I think that a conscious different conscious person can come here to different priorities.

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by Brutha

He could. He could make a speech against the war on drugs (that he is against) and attack it for being racist. He is free to take that side of the debate.

He did just that on CNN when asked about the newsletters. He said he'd free everyone in jail because of non-violent drug offense and that'd free up a huge numbers of black unfairly prisoned by the drug war.

[Brutha]

He did just that on CNN when asked about the newsletters. He said he'd free everyone in jail because of non-violent drug offense and that'd free up a huge numbers of black unfairly prisoned by the drug war.

There is a difference between defending when asked about newsletters and attacking other people and taking a given position (being the most pro-equality candicat on the stage) activly.

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by Brutha

There is a difference between defending when asked about newsletters and attacking other people and taking a given position (being the most pro-equality candicat on the stage) activly.

I don't understand. He has taken an active stage of being anti-Drug War, even though that is a politically unpopular thing to do in the Republican Party.

BTW, I'm not sure Ron Paul is "pro-equality". Socialist tend to be pro-equality. I think Ron Paul would better be described as being "pro-freedom".

[kat]

Originally Posted by seeker5

I don't understand. He has taken an active stage of being anti-Drug War, even though that is a politically unpopular thing to do in the Republican Party.

BTW, I'm not sure Ron Paul is "pro-equality". Socialist tend to be pro-equality. I think Ron Paul would better be described as being "pro-freedom".

Unless you want the freedom to burn flags, among others.

Ron Paul's stance on abortion as a State-level issue is also questionable. While I am very much in favor of relatively powerful States relative to federal governments, I think that a certain amount of basic rights should be guaranteed regardless of what State one is in, and I think Ron Paul goes too far in this.

I also think his monetary policy would be disastrous. The gold standard is no longer feasible for the United States.

I think his ideas on eliminating some large federal institutions, such as the IRS and FBI, are not within the range of presidential power in the United States -- and I've seen no evidence that he has plans for better agencies to deal with intelligence.

Beyond that, he's had a few misguided votes over the years, such as voting in favor of allowing airline pilots to carry guns on planes, and in favor of building a fence on the Mexican border.

I disagree strongly with Ron Paul on a number of issues. Despite this, I think he is one of the better candidates running. I also think he has no chance of winning. The mainstream media has been bending over backwards to minimize his air time.

[Gabo]

Originally Posted by kat

Unless you want the freedom to burn flags, among others.

Paul supports the freedom to burn flags (well, flags you own)

I also think his monetary policy would be disastrous. The gold standard is no longer feasible for the United States.

Why is a value-backed currency unfeasible for the US?
Gold maintains its value almost indefinitely (save for wearing of coins).
This makes it a perfect asset to save, and a good one to spend.
While fiat currencies fail due to runaway inflation and poor policy, people turn to investments in commodity based currencies because they are stable and safe.

A gold-backed dollar would return sanity to our roller-coaster monetary policy.

I think his ideas on eliminating some large federal institutions, such as the IRS and FBI, are not within the range of presidential power in the United States -- and I've seen no evidence that he has plans for better agencies to deal with intelligence.

He may need help of Congress to eliminate these departments, but there is always one thing he can use: the pardon.

Similar to how he has promised to pardon all nonviolent drug offenders, he could pardon all income tax offenders etc.

As to the FBI, it isn't absolutely necessary to have a whole agency devoted to intelligence gathering. I believe Paul's main opposition to the FBI is that it carries out secret activities and spends money unaccounted for. There is nothing wrong with gathering intelligence, but all government agencies need to be held accountable for what they do.

Beyond that, he's had a few misguided votes over the years, such as voting in favor of allowing airline pilots to carry guns on planes, and in favor of building a fence on the Mexican border.

Allowing airline pilots to carry guns would help discourage plane attacks and keep passengers and airplanes safe. Pilots are responsible for the safety of their passengers just as police are responsible for the safety of the community. Each needs weapons to defend against violent attackers.

I believe he said he supported the Mexican border fence bill because it was part of a larger bill that helped cut illegal immigration.
Now, Paul is not an opponent of all immigration, per se.
He simply acknowledges that rapid immigration is unsustainable with a huge welfare state like the one we have.
Once welfare is eliminated, immigrants would be welcomed for their diligence and good work ethic.

I also think he has no chance of winning. The mainstream media has been bending over backwards to minimize his air time.

He has a fair chance of winning.
But in order for that to happen, he needs the already large amount of grassroots campaigning to skyrocket to reach more people.

The old media hates Paul because he will upset their status quo, but they must acknowledge him more and more as he becomes more and more popular.

[Brutha]

BTW, I'm not sure Ron Paul is "pro-equality". Socialist tend to be pro-equality. I think Ron Paul would better be described as being "pro-freedom".

That is more of less the point. He could move in the direction of "pro-equality", which would make it difficult to attack of basis of race, but he doesn't take that stance. (that might not be fair, but that is the way how politics works, when you make mistake you have to pay for them)

[kat]

Originally Posted by Gabo

Paul supports the freedom to burn flags (well, flags you own)

Really?

"H.J.RES.80: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags."

It would be -consistent- for him to support the right to burn your own flag. I certainly consider it to be a free speech issue, and hence, a constitutional and federal matter. Ron Paul disagrees.

Originally Posted by Gabo

Why is a value-backed currency unfeasible for the US?
Gold maintains its value almost indefinitely (save for wearing of coins).
This makes it a perfect asset to save, and a good one to spend.
While fiat currencies fail due to runaway inflation and poor policy, people turn to investments in commodity based currencies because they are stable and safe.

A gold-backed dollar would return sanity to our roller-coaster monetary policy.

I'd rather not get into a debate on economics. Regardless of one's thoughts on how positive a gold standard is, I think we can agree that transitioning to one in the United States, especially if the rest of the world did not, would .... not be entirely smooth. As you pointed out, it requires an extremely different economic system...

Originally Posted by Gabo

He may need help of Congress to eliminate these departments, but there is always one thing he can use: the pardon.

Similar to how he has promised to pardon all nonviolent drug offenders, he could pardon all income tax offenders etc.

That does nothing to eliminate the agencies. I think there is 0 chance that congress would support doing so.

Originally Posted by Gabo

As to the FBI, it isn't absolutely necessary to have a whole agency devoted to intelligence gathering. I believe Paul's main opposition to the FBI is that it carries out secret activities and spends money unaccounted for. There is nothing wrong with gathering intelligence, but all government agencies need to be held accountable for what they do.

A whole agency? Last I checked, there were 28 agencies, including the CIA, NSA, and FBI, among others.

Don't get me wrong: I am _not_ in favor of the IRS and FBI. However, to run for president on the platform of eliminating them, which is not within the president's power, while ignoring worse agencies (the FBI has nothing on the CIA for dirty operations, historically), and without making _concrete_ proposals on what he plans to do next? Color me underwhelmed.

Originally Posted by Gabo

Allowing airline pilots to carry guns would help discourage plane attacks and keep passengers and airplanes safe. Pilots are responsible for the safety of their passengers just as police are responsible for the safety of the community. Each needs weapons to defend against violent attackers.

Read Crypto-Gram: August 15, 2002 - it covers the issue much more thoroughly than I have time to.

I think that your argument has something for it on the ground. In an airplane, it is a knee-jerk reaction which does not fit the situation well.

Banning guns is not the answer to everything. Arming everyone in all situations also is not.

Originally Posted by Gabo

He has a fair chance of winning.
But in order for that to happen, he needs the already large amount of grassroots campaigning to skyrocket to reach more people.

The old media hates Paul because he will upset their status quo, but they must acknowledge him more and more as he becomes more and more popular.

I was in the USA a few weeks ago, when the first primaries were held. After the first primary, at least one station showed all the Democratic candidates who got 2% or more on a pie chart, prominently featuring their names. Ron Paul got 9% (if I recall correctly), and the Republican pie chart had 12% of white, unlabeled space, representing the votes he and the more minor candidates had.

Many of the people I talked to in the States had no idea who Ron Paul was, much less that he was running for president.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Hey, Dan. I will admit I don't know too much about Ron Paul, but what I've heard a lot is allegations of racism and homophobia. I wonder if you have been following any of this and have some more insight.

Also, I would agree that getting out of Iraq is a good idea as well as giving up the "war on drugs" but I cannot support a candidate who would outlaw abortion. I believe the effects would be too devastating. Being a Libertarian wouldn't Paul be opposed to universal daycare or universal healthcare? I might just be exposing my ignorance here. I do have a lot of catching up to do on all the candidates, I won't deny that. But I figure you being such an ardent Paul supporter, you might be able to give me some good insight.

[Barcs]

I'm pretty sure the racism allegations were nothing but a smear campaign. There was some letter with his name on it that wasn't even written by him. It was written by some company that he has connections with. Ron Paul is pretty much the only candidate who is drifting from the norm this year, and you can bet that will lead to all kinds of smearing and whatnot. Did anyone catch the republican debate last night? I didn't expect him to be there, but he was! And people cheered for him everytime he was up to speak. This is a good sign, but I thought the same thing about Howard Dean last election. He was killing it in the polls and everything else, and then Kerry mysteriously wins. He could have taken out Bush. I just hope that Ron Paul will be able to accomplish what he wants with congress generally being against it. I don't agree with completely outlawing abortion. I believe the government should have no say in that. If you feel that abortion is wrong, then don't get it done. It's that simple.

[kat]

Originally Posted by Barcs

I'm pretty sure the racism allegations were nothing but a smear campaign. There was some letter with his name on it that wasn't even written by him. It was written by some company that he has connections with. Ron Paul is pretty much the only candidate who is drifting from the norm this year, and you can bet that will lead to all kinds of smearing and whatnot. Did anyone catch the republican debate last night? I didn't expect him to be there, but he was! And people cheered for him everytime he was up to speak. This is a good sign, but I thought the same thing about Howard Dean last election. He was killing it in the polls and everything else, and then Kerry mysteriously wins. He could have taken out Bush. I just hope that Ron Paul will be able to accomplish what he wants with congress generally being against it. I don't agree with completely outlawing abortion. I believe the government should have no say in that. If you feel that abortion is wrong, then don't get it done. It's that simple.

The Ron Paul Survival Report: FAQ: Ron Paul and his Racist Newsletter (Updated) has a convincing case that the racism allegations are not just a smear campaign.

It's indisputable that Ron Paul's personal newsletter carried some very racist articles. It's hard to argue against evidence that, along with the founder of the Mises institute, he courted paleoconservatives, many of whom are racist.

What is possible is that he genuinely was unaware of some of the contents of his newsletter, which bore his name, and/or decided to let other people's racist diatribes be published in it. Point 11 of the article I linked to casts serious doubt on the idea that he was so far removed.

Ron is the candidate furthest from the 'norm' who is still a significant candidate at this point. The media has treated him exceptionally unfairly. This does not change his own record. Overall, he has a rather consistent record, with a significant number of principled stances. That said, he is not flawless, and a few of his flaws are rather serious - whether or not racism is one of them.

Howard Dean was killed as a candidate when the press made a big deal of 'the scream'. It was reprehensible journalism.

Ron Paul won't be elected. In an alternative universe where he had any chance of being elected, he still would be a lame duck in the face of congress with his more libertarian goals, as neither Democrat nor Republican politicians share much of his political agenda. What he would actually be able to bring into law would be a few pet issues of some American conservatives, such as writing laws which would negate Roe v. Wade.

[Barcs]

Howard Dean was killed as a candidate when the press made a big deal of 'the scream'. It was reprehensible journalism.

I know that most of America is dumbed down, but I really don't see why that would sway anybody to vote Kerry over him, unless they really are that dumb. Who cares if the dude got emmotional? He was ready to become president of the US f'n A!! I agree that it was horrible journalism, but I believe there was more to it then that. It was deliberate.

I will read more on the that link you posted, thanks.

[kat]

Originally Posted by Barcs

I know that most of America is dumbed down, but I really don't see why that would sway anybody to vote Kerry over him, unless they really are that dumb. Who cares if the dude got emmotional? He was ready to become president of the US f'n A!! I agree that it was horrible journalism, but I believe there was more to it then that. It was deliberate.

I said that the media deliberately smeared Dean. There were all kinds of articles talking about how it made him unsuitable as a candidate and other nonsense, and far too many re-airings. It was a classic case of blowing things out of proportion.

I don't think the event itself was particularly consequential. I think the media coverage was.

Horrible does not imply unintentional or non-deliberate.

The American media currently is far too consolidated (at least in the mainstream), and far too prone to playing kingmaker in elections while bouncing all kinds of silliness around as if it were an echo-chamber.