Ron Paul is, and always has been, a bigot and a crank

[matgb]

Right then, the US primaries are on us, and a bunch of people are backing anyone they think is anti-establishment or just anti-Bush. One in particular is getting a load of support online. The "libertarian" called Ron Paul. The scare quotes are there for a reason, he ain't any kind of libertarian I recognise. Ages back I somehow got myself on left-leaning news magazine The New Republic emailing list. I've kept meaing to unsubscribe, but think I may keep it going for a bit longer. Real, proper investigative journalism, digging out and wading through years worth of his newsletter archives (anyone who tells you "blogging" is new has no clue what blogging is). In the past, when archives of his racism have been dug out, he's said that it was written by someone else, well digging back further into the depths gives us evidence of a very Angry White Man:

whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles ... seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him—and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing—but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

Jennie has found more at The Gob and is linking to pope_guilty's post on the same article and also to his regular copy/paste Paulbomb. Reading on in the TNR article gives quotes condemning Martin Luther King, supporting the KKK's David Duke, calling for the quarantine of AIDS victims (and perpetuating the saliva transmission myth way after it was proven false) and calling Israel a "national socialist state".

Paul is anti-war. So is Kucinich. Paul is pro-legalisation of marijuana. So is Kucinich. Paul is a racist bigot. Kucinich isn't. If you want an anti-establishment "big money" candidate, back Kucinich or an actual Libertarian (actually, don't do the latter, the US FPTP is even worse than ours). Paul's only main strength is his appeal to "the constitution" as if it's some hallowed document. Even the people that wrote it didn't expect it to be relelvent 50 years afterwards, that it's lasted 300 is testament to their genius. Times changes, the economy changes. Appealing to the "sacred words" of some dead white slaveowners and refusing to accept it'll ever need updating is insanity writ large.

In the primaries, if you've got a vote, vote for the candidate closest to you on the issues. If you genuinely think that candidate is Ron Paul, then, seriously, get a reality check. It isn't.

ETA: Paul has distanced himself from the articles, saying:

“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 publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

So either he's lying, or he's not competent enough to take responsibility for words written in his name. Either way, he's unfit to be the leader of the free world. Thanks for the head's up Aaron!

Comments

[thapunkprincess.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I guess I just find it interesting how certain issues play so big in US political debate, namely abortion, God, sexuality... that sorta thing. Stances on these appear to be the vote clinchers, and the meaty stuff such as war, economics, and the role of Government seem almost secondary (though that's not to say that Americans don't recognise them as hugely important also). So when Ron Paul makes a tangible break from the pack by clearly defining his opposition to war and imperialism it's no wonder he attracts support, because he's treading on a different sort of political territory and people find this refreshing. And rather than attacking him on these grounds or through an ideological critique of Libertarianism itself, Democrats are instead deploying the social issues I mention above (racism, homophobia etc). I'm not saying these aren't legitimate grounds for criticism, I'm just noting the parameters of the discourse.

I reckon the reason is because Libertarianism is the defining aspect of American politics. A heady brew of the Founding Fathers, Hayek, and Rand infuses all mainstream US politics to a significant extent. I've been chatting to a lot of Americans online lately from both sides of the political divide and it's the social issues that grab them. When you get down to it, most are in agreement that small government, low taxes, and individual freedom are all a priori good things. Ron Paul seems like a living embodiment of these ideas taken (almost) to their logical conclusion and since the ideas are already a part of everyone else's US political discourse one could almost say that Ron Paul is a suicide-virus, exposing the limits of US politics itself!