Posted on 01/12/2008 1:37:33 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
For the past few months most libertarians have been pleased to see Ron Paul achieving unexpected success with his presidential campaign’s message of ending the Iraq war, abolishing the federal income tax, establishing sound money, and restoring the Constitution. Sure, some of us didn’t like his talk about closing the borders and his conspiratorial view of a North-South highway. But the main themes of his campaign, the ones that generated the multi-million-dollar online fundraising spectaculars and the youthful “Ron Paul Revolution,” were classic libertarian issues. It was particularly gratifying to see a presidential candidate tie the antiwar position to a belief in a strictly limited federal government.
And so it’s understandable that over the past few months a lot of people have been asking why writers at the Cato Institute seemed to display a lack of interest in or enthusiasm for the Paul campaign. Well, now you know. We had never seen the newsletters that have recently come to light, and I for one was surprised at just how vile they turned out to be. But we knew the company Ron Paul had been keeping, and we feared that they would have tied him to some reprehensible ideas far from the principles we hold.
Ron Paul says he didn’t write these newsletters, and I take him at his word. They don’t sound like him. In my infrequent personal encounters and in his public appearances, I’ve never heard him say anything racist or homophobic (halting and uncomfortable on gay issues, like a lot of 72-year-old conservatives, but not hateful). But he selected the people who did write those things, and he put his name on the otherwise unsigned newsletters, and he raised campaign funds from the mailing list that those newsletters created. And he would have us believe that things that “do not represent what I believe or have ever believed” appeared in his newsletter for years and years without his knowledge. Assuming Ron Paul in fact did not write those letters, people close to him did. His associates conceived, wrote, edited, and mailed those words. His closest associates over many years know who created those publications. If they truly admire Ron Paul, if they think he is being unfairly tarnished with words he did not write, they should come forward, take responsibility for their words, and explain how they kept Ron Paul in the dark for years about the words that appeared every month in newsletters with “Ron Paul” in the title.
Paul says he didn’t write the letters, that he denounces the words that appeared in them, that he was unaware for decades of what 100,000 people were receiving every month from him. That’s an odd claim on which to run for president: I didn’t know what my closest associates were doing over my signature, so give me responsibility for the federal government.
But of course Ron Paul isn’t running for president. He’s not going to be president, he’s not going to be the Republican nominee for president, and he never hoped to be. He got into the race to advance ideas—the ideas of peace, constitutional government, and freedom. Succeeding beyond his wildest dreams, he became the most visible so-called “libertarian” in America. And now he and his associates have slimed the noble cause of liberty and limited government.
Mutterings about the past mistakes of the New Republic or the ideological agenda of author James Kirchick are beside the point. Maybe Bob Woodward didn’t like Quakers; the corruption he uncovered in the Nixon administration was still a fact, and that’s all that mattered. Ron Paul’s most visible defenders have denounced Kirchick as a “pimply-faced youth”—so much for their previous enthusiasm about all the young people sleeping on floors for the Paul campaign—and a neoconservative. But they have not denied the facts he reported. Those words appeared in newsletters under his name. And, notably, they have not dared to defend or even quote the actual words that Kirchick reported. Even those who vociferously defend Ron Paul and viciously denounce Kirchick, perhaps even those who wrote the words originally, are apparently unwilling to quote and defend the actual words that appeared over Ron Paul’s signature.
Those words are not libertarian words. Maybe they reflect “paleoconservative” ideas, though they’re not the language of Burke or even Kirk. But libertarianism is a philosophy of individualism, tolerance, and liberty. As Ayn Rand wrote, “Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.” Making sweeping, bigoted claims about all blacks, all homosexuals, or any other group is indeed a crudely primitive collectivism.
Libertarians should make it clear that the people who wrote those things are not our comrades, not part of our movement, not part of the tradition of John Locke, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and Robert Nozick. Shame on them.
But noooooooo.
Looks like she ate a few too many of her roadsigns.
H
RP said he did not write the letters, ok.
However, he let them be published under his name for decades.
That make them his.
Color me surprised, I don't think.
I can’t say I’m surprised at the quotations cited from Paul’s newsletters. The man’s a first-class lunatic. I think its important to acknowledge the connection between the racist nonsense in Paul’s newsletters, and the anti-Israel and anti-war movement in this country today.
Paul’s more liberal than most leftists might want to acknowledge. He’s certainly no conservative.
H
Ron Paul is the political manifestation of Cato. They just can’t stand the stink of their own sh*t.
Is this supposed to be the new mantra for Ron Paul and his lunatic fringe?
A whole lot of really gullible people have spent a whole lot of money on this nut and his hopeless campaign. Somehow I have to think there is more behind his candidacy than the "advancement of ideas".
One would think that the Paultards would hang their head in shame and slink away. Instead they defend the ugly subculture of the ultra far right. Bizarro.
I think his leftist supporters are finally realizing that. Paul has dropped back down to 3% in Rasmussen polls the last few days. Stick a fork in him; he’s done.
Ron Paul is the political manifestation of Cato. They just can’t stand the stink of their own sh*t.
But of course he is. I just happen to have received my sample ballot for the February 5 primary today and his name is on the Republican list. Or did somebody else also send that application out over his signature without him knowing it?
Don’t get me wrong...I like lower taxes, maybe have a flat tax, allow more State’s rights and believe in some of the Libertarian values.
But not with Ron Paul.
Got too much garbage coming out his closet.
The Ron Paul supporters around here have repeatedly told me that Ron Paul is on the Republican ticket because he is a Republican.
You seem to indicate that Ron Paul really is a Libertarian? Now you got me totally confused. I wish you could at least figure out to which party Ron Paul belongs.
“I am pretty skeptical that any of the candidates are racists.”
Taken a good look at Obama and Clinton lately?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
All I know about Obama and Clinton are that they are big government statists that I would not vote for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.