Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters? (Throw Rockwell Under the Bus Time)

Reason Magazine ^

[mnehrling]

Libertarian movement veterans, and a Paul campaign staffer, say it was "paleolibertarian" strategist Lew Rockwell

Julian Sanchez and David Weigel | January 16, 2008

Ron Paul doesn't seem to know much about his own newsletters. The libertarian-leaning presidential candidate says he was unaware, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, of the bigoted rhetoric about African Americans and gays that was appearing under his name. He told CNN last week that he still has "no idea" who might have written inflammatory comments such as "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks"—statements he now repudiates. Yet in interviews with reason, a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul—all named the same man as Paul's chief ghostwriter: Ludwig von Mises Institute founder Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr.

Tax filings from 1985 and 2001 show that Rockwell, Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982, was a vice president of Ron Paul & Associates, the corporation that published the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report. The company was dissolved in 2001. During the period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994—Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters recently unearthed by The New Republic. To this day Rockwell remains a friend and advisor to Paul—accompanying him to major media appearances; promoting his candidacy on the LewRockwell.com blog; publishing his books; and peddling an array of the avuncular Texas congressman's recent writings and audio recordings.

Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick. Rockwell twice declined to discuss the matter with reason, maintaining this week that he had "nothing to say." He has characterized discussion of the newsletters as "hysterical smears aimed at political enemies" of The New Republic. Paul himself called the controversy "old news," and "ancient history" when we reached him last week, and he has not responded to further request for comment.

But a source close to the Paul presidential campaign told reason that Rockwell authored much of the content of the Political Report and Survival Report. "If Rockwell had any honor he'd come out and I say, ‘I wrote this stuff,'" said the source, who asked not to be named because Paul remains friendly with Rockwell and is reluctant to assign responsibility for the letters. "He should have done it 10 years ago."

Rockwell was publicly named as Paul's ghostwriter as far back as a 1988 issue of the now-defunct movement monthly American Libertarian. "This was based on my understanding at the time that Lew would write things that appeared in Ron's various newsletters," former AL editor Mike Holmes told reason. "Neither Ron nor Lew ever told me that, but other people close to them such as Murray Rothbard suggested that Lew was involved, and it was a common belief in libertarian circles."

..more at Reason.com

[mnehrling]

This may have some interesting results considering how much Rockwell has been doing for Paul's campaign.

[mnehrling]

ping

[Bob]

Was Paul listed as the editor or publisher of the newsletter? If so, except for ‘Letters to the Editor’, he’s as responsible for the contents as the writers are.

[ontap]

The good doctor it seems has a Frankenstein monster out there and it might be killing some peasants. Que the lightning and the sinister laboratory!

[mnehrling]

Here are links to scanned copies, you can decide.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=54586159-12be-442c-810d-020982d8becb

[svcw]

Published under his name and image.

[mnehrling]

Speaing of which, did you see the cover of the New Individualist this month?

[denydenydeny]

Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives,"

"Paleoconservative libertarianism" is a horrible oxymoron, and Cindy Sheehan's boyfriend Lew Rockwell is revealed as an even worse person than we knew him to be.

[SJackson]

Not sure it matters, even if he excuses are true, the level of negligence involved is a disqualifier. If this happened to the supervisor of a middle school newspaper, that teacher would be out of a job. I admit that if it's Rockwell, that makes it worse. In that case he clearly tolerates racists in the circle of those closest to him.

===============

Paul's Apology: Say it Ain't So, Dr. No
by Jacob Sullum
Human Events

Ron Paul is not just a rare politician. The Texas Republican's combination of principle and plainspokenness, which has helped his presidential campaign break fund-raising records while attracting a strikingly diverse and enthusiastic crowd of supporters, makes him unique in recent U.S. history.

Since 1997, as during his terms in the 1970s and '80s, Paul has been the only member of Congress who has consistently taken seriously his oath to "support and defend the Constitution," earning the sobriquet Dr. No by voting against unconstitutional bills his colleagues were eager to support. More than any politician I can recall, Paul seems to say what he believes and believe what he says. That's why it's so disappointing to see his defensive, evasive responses to questions about racially inflammatory articles in newsletters that were published under his name in the '80s and '90s.

Not everything you may have heard about the newsletters is true. Contrary to what James Kirchick claims in The New Republic, the newsletters did not offer "kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke." And although various media outlets have described parts of the newsletters as "anti-Semitic," there's little evidence to back up that description in the passages Kirchick cites.

But the truth is bad enough. In addition to anti-gay comments that pine for the days of the closet, the newsletters include gratuitous swipes at Martin Luther King, discussions of crime that emphasize the perpetrators' skin color, and dark warnings of coming "race riots." None of it is explicitly racist, and some of it could be written off as deliberately provocative political commentary. Taken together, however, these passages clearly cater to the prejudices of angry white guys who hate gay people and fear blacks.

When Paul's opponent in his 1996 congressional campaign pointed to some of this ugly stuff, Paul accused him of taking the quotes "out of context." It was not until a 2001 interview with the Texas Monthly that Paul said his campaign advisers had discouraged him from telling the complete, "confusing" truth about the newsletters: that the most outrageous material had been written by someone else.

That is Paul's defense today, and I'm inclined to believe him. The race-baiting newsletter passages do not sound like anything else Paul has said or written in his public life. People who were familiar with the newsletters' production confirm that they were largely ghostwritten and that Paul often did not review them prior to publication.

Yet, the fact remains that Paul earned money and built his fund-raising list with newsletters that seemed to be aimed at bigots. Given his association with "paleolibertarians" such as Lew Rockwell who sought to construct an anti-statist coalition partly by appealing to racial resentments, he owes his supporters more than accepting "moral responsibility" for inadequately overseeing the newsletters to which he lent his name.

In a CNN interview, Paul alternated between acknowledging the legitimacy of this issue and dismissing it as old news dredged up "for political reasons." I'm sure most of his supporters were not familiar with the content of his newsletters. I've been working at the country's leading libertarian magazine on and off since 1989, and it was news to me.

If I thought Ron Paul might be president in 2009, I'd have to admit that his newsletter negligence raises questions about his judgment and about the people he'd choose to advise him. But since the value of the Paul campaign lies in promoting the libertarian ideals of limited government, individual freedom and tolerance, the real problem is that the newsletters contradict this message.

On CNN, Paul emphasized that "racist libertarian" is an oxymoron since libertarians judge people as individuals. He should follow through on that point by identifying the author(s) of the race-baiting material and repudiating not just the sentiments it represents but the poisonous, self-defeating strategy of building an anti-collectivist movement on group hatred.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Sullum, a nationally syndicated columnist, is a senior editor at Reason magazine, and his work appears in the new Reason anthology "Choice" (BenBella Books).

[Bob]

Thanks for the links.

I had never read more than quotes pulled from them. I was suspecting that the quotes, as bad as they were, had been pulled out of context for maximum shock value. That wasn't the case. The newsletter that I read in its entirety could easily have been mistaken for a Klan newsletter.

[Rick.Donaldson]

Moderator is removing things again? Another Paulianne calling people names like they did me the other day (Yeah, I had a post removed too, because I’m not going to sit there and let someone call me a name without giving it back.)

[jmc813]

Taken together, however, these passages clearly cater to the prejudices of angry white guys who hate gay people and fear blacks.

[Rick.Donaldson]

Whether or not Mr. Paul is a racist remains to be seen, but the articles were written in HIS news letter, he tends to agree with many of the authors’ comments (whomever they may be) - and that, I’m afraid makes him just as guilty as his authors.

He’s a kook who should be on a lease. He needs to step OUT of this race (except for the interesting drama involved around him) and probably quietly retire before some other kook decides he’s the Anti-Christ or something.

[texastoo]

Ron Paul kicked a$$ last night. He beat both Guilani and Thompson.

[Sidebar Moderator]

Just removing profanity. Nothing to see here, move along.

[Rick.Donaldson]

LOL! Nothing to see.

Actually, the THREAD is here to see. I wasn’t putting down the Mod for removing things. I was actually stating that it’s a fact that some of these jerks come out of the wood work and call people names for no reason. It happened to me, and I’m not just going to report it - I’m going after people like that.

I’ve been in this business of running forums a lot longer than the Mods and the owner here - and you fight fire with fire with those people :)

[AuntB]

“did you see the cover of the New Individualist this month?”

Is that a libertarian publication?

[Rick.Donaldson]

Ron paul is a loser. Kicking a$$ in a primary ? No. He did no such thing. That he has so many loser-followers is amazing, but you know, a cult is a cult any way you cut it.

[mnehrling]

Not in the modern Birch style Libertarian mold, more of the classic objectivist mold.

[jmc813]

He’s a kook who should be on a lease.

I hear Paul finances.

[jmc813]

I was actually stating that it’s a fact that some of these jerks come out of the wood work and call people names for no reason.

For the record, I wasn't calling you names. I just posted that "Aw, Jeez, not this ____ again" graphic. The dude that posted this thread is a major cause of deja vu in my life. I feel like the movie "Groundhog Day" sometimes on this forum, and Ehrling is my Sonny and Cher.

[rightwingintelligentsia]

Ron Paul kicked a$$ last night. He beat both Guilani and Thompson.

Since Michigan's primary was open and Dems were urged by the left wing blogs to vote for certain Republicans (including Paul) in a spoiler fashion, I don't think this has much meaning. If he scores big in a closed primary state where only Republicans can vote, then you may be able to make that claim.

[Proud2BeRight]

Ron Paul kicked a$$ last night. He beat both Guilani and Thompson. Oh, yea. A whopping 6%. WOW! He had 10% in his first primary. He had 8% in his second primary and now gets 6% in his third primary. That's a trend that's really kickin' a$$.

[jmc813]

Is Paul doing better or worse than you initially expected him to do when he first announced?

[mnehrling]

The dude that posted this thread is a major cause of deja vu in my life.

What's interesting is you make a choice to keep coming back. Maybe you should grab a mirror if that deja vu feeling keeps popping up.

[Proud2BeRight]

“Is Paul doing better or worse than you initially expected him to do when he first announced?”

Perhaps a little less than I expected. I take his run as a way to determine the percentage of tinfoil hat people in society. It’s actually refreshing to see the numbers less than the internet would make you believe.

[Allegra]

[jmc813]

What's interesting is you make a choice to keep coming back.

You know as well as I do that FR is like crack. Habits are tough to break.

[Lorianne]

"Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks"

Notwithstanding the fact that this might have been true, you can't write something like this in this day and age. Has anyone checked on the veracity of the comment?

[junta]

If you need to chase someone off the PC plantation John Derbyshire defends Paul at an unmentionable web site. Maybe you can chase Derbyshire off of NR and purify the ideology.

[AuntB]

Muslim newspaper endorses Ron Paul in Michigan
The Muslim Observer endorsed Congressman Ron Paul in the Michigan Republican primary.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008

http://www.speroforum.com/site/artic...ul+in+Michigan

[mnehrling]

I’ll let Paul chase people off the PC plantation, he is the one who called the thoughts ‘small minded’ and apparently, his campaign is chasing Rockwell off. I’m just posting news.

[mountainbunny]

I only see three possible scenarios with this entire issue:
Either:
1). Mr. Paul was unaware of the egregious behavior being done repeatedly in his name, pointing to a serious lack of ability to manage and oversee even those closest to him in his organization, and is thus unqualified for office.
(or)
2). Mr. Paul was aware of the idiocy being propagated in his name, but wanted plausible deniability at the time, so he allowed this garbage to be written for him so he wouldn't have to get his own hands dirty while garnering the support of those who this sort of thing speaks to. This would point to a serious lack of ethics, and an inability to take any responsibility for himself; qualities that immediately disqualify him for the highest office in the land.
(or)
3). Mr. Paul wrote the newsletters himself, is (or was) the person they portray, and is now trying to pass his own idiocy off on someone else at this late date. This would be shameful and wrong on so many levels and would immediately disqualify him for higher office.

So, which is it? I have yet to hear anything from a Paul supporter that shows how he could possibly be clean in this dirty mess.

[Rick.Donaldson]

NO NO! I didn’t say ANYONE in this thread :) You misunderstood. (I had someone jump me in another thread, about Ron Paul, who called me a moron among other things - so I called him a dumbass. Both of the posts got pulled).

Long time ago I used to enforce a “no cussing” rule - I gave up though, and I figured it this way. if someone is offended by bad language, tough $h!+ hehe. :) I get offended at people who get offended all the time now. lol

Truth is, I can handle my own fights. If someone wants to throw down with this old man, go ahead, and I’ll kick his or her ass all over the street. I’m a little Irish you know. Then, I’ll buy him/her a drink after

But in this day and age everyone wants to sue someone or cry to a moderator. Yes, I do turn in my share of “abuse” posts on this site because, if I don’t then people get away with petty crap they shouldn’t.

So... no, I didn’t think you called me anything :)

[SJackson]

The most interesting part of the article. Clearly this was part of an electoral strategy which didn't work. Paul lost in 1988, the nation decided it didn't need to choose between Buchanan and Duke, so they tried again, sans the racism.

Rockwell explained the thrust of the idea in a 1990 Liberty essay entitled "The Case for Paleo-Libertarianism." To Rockwell, the LP was a "party of the stoned," a halfway house for libertines that had to be "de-loused." To grow, the movement had to embrace older conservative values. "State-enforced segregation," Rockwell wrote, "was wrong, but so is State-enforced integration. State-enforced segregation was not wrong because separateness is wrong, however. Wishing to associate with members of one's own race, nationality, religion, class, sex, or even political party is a natural and normal human impulse."

The most detailed description of the strategy came in an essay Rothbard wrote for the January 1992 Rothbard-Rockwell Report, titled "Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement." Lamenting that mainstream intellectuals and opinion leaders were too invested in the status quo to be brought around to a libertarian view, Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an "Outreach to the Rednecks," which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes. (Duke, a former Klansman, was discussed in strikingly similar terms in a 1990 Ron Paul Political Report.) These groups could be mobilized to oppose an expansive state, Rothbard posited, by exposing an "unholy alliance of 'corporate liberal' Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass, who, among them all, are looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America."

Anyone with doubts about the composition of the "parasitic Underclass" could look to the regular "PC Watch" feature of the Report, in which Rockwell compiled tale after tale of thuggish black men terrifying petite white and Asian women. (Think Birth of a Nation crossed with News of the Weird.) The list of PC outrages in the February 1993 issue, for example, cited a Washington Post column on films that feature "plenty of interracial sex, and nobody noticing," a news article about black members of the Southern Methodist University marching band "engaged in mass shoplifting while in Japan," and a sob story about a Korean shop-owner who shot a black shoplifter and assailant in the head: "The travesty is that Mrs. Du got five years probation, and must cancel a trip to Korea."

The populist outreach program centered on tax reduction, abolition of welfare, elimination of "the entire 'civil rights' structure, which tramples on the property rights of every American," and a police crackdown on "street criminals." "Cops must be unleashed," Rothbard wrote, "and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error." While they're at it, they should "clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares?" To seal the deal with social conservatives, Rothbard urged a federalist compromise in their direction on "pornography, prostitution, or abortion." And because grassroots organizing is "plodding and boring," this new paleo coalition would need to be kick-started by "high-level, preferably presidential, political campaigns."

The presidential campaign Rothbard and Rockwell supported in 1988 was Ron Paul's run on the Libertarian Party ticket. In 1992, they were again ready to back Paul, until Pat Buchanan convinced the obstetrician to withdraw and back his conservative challenge to then-president Bush. "We have a dream," Rockwell wrote in that same January 1992 edition of RRR, "and perhaps someday it will come to pass. (Hell, if 'Dr.' King can have a dream, why can't we?) Our dream is that, one day, we Buchananites can present Mr. and Mrs. America, and all the liberal and conservative and centrist elites, with a dramatic choice....We can say: 'Look, gang: you have a choice, it's either Pat Buchanan or David Duke.'"

...snip...

But perhaps the best refutation of the old approach is not the absence of race-baiting rhetoric from its progenitors, but the success of the 2008 Ron Paul phenomenon. The man who was once the Great Paleolibertarian Hope has built a broad base of enthusiastic supporters without resorting to venomous rhetoric or coded racism. He has stuck stubbornly to the issues of sound money, "humble foreign policy," and shrinking the state. He wraps up his speeches with a three-part paean to individualism: "I don't want to run your life," "I don't want to run the economy," and "I don't want to run the world." He talks about the disproportionate effect of the drug war on African-Americans, and appeared at a September 2007 Republican debate on black issues that was boycotted by the then-frontrunners. All this and more have brought him $30 million-plus from more than 100,000 donors; thousands of campaign volunteers, and the largest rallies he's ever spoken to, including a crowd of almost 5,000 in Philadelphia.

Basicly the same conclusion folks like Paul Fromm, Don Black, Willis Carto, Kevin Alfred Strom and John Tyndall came to when they signed the New Orleans Protocol four years ago in the name of European American unity. Lay off the overt racism when recruiting, bring them in on other issues. It's a plan!

The New Orleans Protocol

On Saturday, May 29, 2004, leaders of groups from three countries struck a historical agreement about future conduct in the post-September 11 era. The protocol was the initiative of former Louisiana State representative David Duke.

The protocol pledges adherents to a pan-European outlook, recognizing national and ethnic allegiance, but stressing the value of all European peoples. The three provisions of the protocols are:

Zero tolerance for violence.

Honourable and ethical behaviour in relations with other signatory groups. This includes not attacking or denouncing others who have signed this protocol. In other words, no enemies on the right.

Maintaining a high tone in our arguments and public presentations.

The founding endorsers of the New Orleans Protocol are EURO and the David Duke Report (David Duke), Stormfront (Don Black), the American Free Press (Willis Carto), the Truth at Last (Dr. Ed Fields), the National Alliance (Kevin Alfred Strom), the British National Party [England] (John Tyndall) and the Canadian Association for Free Expression [Canada] (Paul Fromm)

[Proud2BeRight]

“So, which is it? I have yet to hear anything from a Paul supporter that shows how he could possibly be clean in this dirty mess.”

I’ve asked the same question many times and on multiple forum and all I ever get back is “it’s old news”. That is so lame that even a Democrat wouldn’t get by with that kind of non-response. The guy is one or more of the following; liar, racist, conspiracy theory nut, and/or total incompetent. His cult needs to admit which he is and realize that any of the choices makes him unqualified to be POTUS.

[mountainbunny]

The whole thing is a mess, and I feel sincerely bad for many of his supporters because there don’t seem to be any good answers forthcoming.

I think a lot of Mr. Paul’s followers and supporters feel disconnected from the process and this doesn’t help. I really would like to see GOP leadership take a long, hard look at itself and try to figure out why Mr. Paul has drawn the support he has from people who would probably otherwise support Republicans.

I don’t know if they will do that, however, which is part of the problem.

[Puddleglum]

Not just Rockwell, I think. There seems to be more than one writer, judging by the varying tone of the columns.

[DugwayDuke]

As I’ve said on other threads, a lot of the internet support for Ron Paul can be traced to Rockwell or Justin Raimondo.

Both Antiwar and lewrockwell used to have a banner listing the other as a sister site. Both are linked to the Von Mises Institute where lew rockwell is the president. Raimondo is a policy analyst at the Center for Libertarian Studies. CLS is formally affiliated with the Von Mises Institute. The links between Antiwar, Von Mises, lew rockwell are many. They are all avid supporters of Ron Paul.

[AuntB]

Hey!! Ron Paul just won a straw poll! Maybe someone can finally see his support is NOT coming from conservatives.

A DEMOCRATIC PARTY STRAW POLL

It may be snowing here in Washington, D.C., but the sun is apparently shinning on Congressman Ron Paul, who edged out Senator John McCain in the 2008 Democratic Party Republican Straw Poll. Meanwhile, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani ended up in a familiar place: sixth.

Top 3 results: Candidate % Rep. Ron Paul 25.72%

Sen. John McCain 24.73%

Gov. Mike Huckabee 17.17%

http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/01/paul_tops_mccai_2.php

[x]

Yes, throw Rockwell under the bus and drive back and forth over him a few times.

It's time for a look at the real Rockwell and his agenda.

[DugwayDuke]

Check out this thread on another potential link between Rockwell and Ron Paul.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1954778/posts?page=15

The essence of this thread is that the Constitution Party is courting Ron Paul.

According to one poster there, the Constitution party is linked to the League of the South.

FYI, Lew Rockwell was one of the founders of the League of the South. Also, there have been several pro ron Paul articles posted on the Constitution Party website.

One begins to wonder after reading the article starting this thread on Paul’s long term political strategy and the Constitution Party thread if Ron Paul may be pulling a gigantic scam on gullible conservative republicans. Here’s the outline of the potential scam. Ron uses his republican credentials to raise a large sum of campaign cash then uses this cash to run as the Constitution Party nominee.