FeedPolitics: A message to Ron Paul supporters
January 14, 2008 in Statehouse & Capitol Tags: Abraham Lincoln, Barack Obama, New Republic, Ron Paul
Try to see past Ron Paul’s message of the day. Yes, he’s anti war. Yes, he’s anti tax. Yes, he’s (nominally) for the rights of the individual.
But look into his background. And look into the background of his most ardent, long-time supporters. You will see a history of racism, homophobia and paranoia.
I’ve written about Paul’s admitted love for the Confederacy (the belief that Lincoln was a tyrant and that the North should have just bought the slaves their freedom). I’ve mentioned the racist newsletters that bore his name.
This well-researched article in the New Republic traces Paul’s racist brand of libertarianism to the Ludwig von Mises institute (which is named after a great libertarian thinker, but one who had nothing to do with the institute) :
The people surrounding the von Mises Institute–including Paul–may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing like the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine. Instead, they represent a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history–the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states. As one prominent Washington libertarian told me, “There are too many libertarians in this country … who, because they are attracted to the great books of Mises, … find their way to the Mises Institute and then are told that a defense of the Confederacy is part of libertarian thought.”
Many of the young Paul supporters I meet say that they also are attracted to the candidacy of Barack Obama. It seems they see in Obama some of what they see on Paul: A candidate who’s a bit of an outsider who can bring change to a corrupt system. And therein lies the irony: Paul would prefer to live in a world in which the slaves were not freed by force, even if if means Barack Obama would be a picking cotton in chains in South Carolina, and not running for president. I’m not buying Paul’s contention that he had no idea that these newsletters that bore his name contained all this racism.
If any other Republican or Democratic candidate had this racist baggage, I’d be all over him. I’ll do no different for a man who slaps the tag “libertarian” on himself. I’m not so starved for a libertarian approach to governance that I’ll risk putting a damn neo-Confederate in office.
Character is more important in a president than political philosophy. Paul doesn’t qualify. That’s why I’ll probably be voting for Barack Obama or John McCain, assuming either one wins their party’s primary.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Logical fallacy.
“the belief that Lincoln was a tyrant and that the North should have just bought the slaves their freedom” does not indicate love for the Confederacy, or being a neo-Confederate.
I think hundreds of thousands of American deaths were not necessary in order to free the slaves, and I think their deaths were an absolute tragedy. Does that make me a racist, or a neo-Confederate? Give me a break.
January 14th, 2008 at 2:27 am
gRegor: “I think hundreds of thousands of American deaths were not necessary in order to free the slaves, and I think their deaths were an absolute tragedy. Does that make me a racist, or a neo-Confederate?”
I think it makes you a wishful thinker. You believe politicians and leaders ought to behave as if they live in the world they wish existed. What we end up with is Jimmy Carter.
January 14th, 2008 at 3:42 am
Why weren’t hundreds of thousands of lives necessary for most other countries to get rid of slavery?
Yeah, I’m a “wishful thinker.” I wish we lived in a world where government didn’t kill hundreds and thousands of people, and that people didn’t defend it or dismiss any alternatives as “wishful thinking.”
January 14th, 2008 at 8:17 am
I guess I just take a more pragmatic approach.
Paul’s position on the Civil War would be a big issue for me if the year was 1860. But I don’t think any states are on the verge of seceding or bringing back slavery in 2008. The newsletters were troubling but he’s denied writing them, denounced them on CNN and in fact denounced all racism.
I’m more concerned about our current war. I’m more concerned about our ballooning deficit and the fact China has been buying our debt to the tune of $1 trillion just to keep us in Iraq. I’m concerned that the Baby Boomers are just now starting to collect their old age entitlement benefits, and most other politicians seem to want to expand coverage. Paul is the only one I feel I can count on to control spending. Because his rhetoric matches his record.
If you have these grand designs for providing every American with health care, toothpaste, shoes, or easy credit, God bless ya. But what we need now, more than ever, is less government, not more. After being burned by Bush, I just feel Paul is the only one I can count on to reign in spending and stand up to the lobbyists.
If there was a younger candidate with the same platform as Paul without the Civil War view and newsletter past, I’d go for him. But I’m not about to cut off my nose to spite my face.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:21 am
If you want to vote for a politician that has character, then I believe the current crop doesn’t fit that bill either. They have all flip flopped on something in order to pander to whatever block of voters needs pandered too.
In my previous comment on another post (
http://peoriapundit.com/blogpe.....ent-101865 ) I stated the reasons as to why I like the message Ron Paul is talking about. I admit the guy isn’t perfect and he didn’t right those newsletters, but he is responsible because he let his name be used by the people who did. Was he aware of the content, well that is up for debate, but my guess is to an extent yes he did. But the idea that the civil war was only about slavery is false. The issue was States rights and slavery was the catalyst that brought this group of States together. I am not a supporter of slavery and I believe the treatment the slaves endured was horrible, but it was the States right to succeed from the Union and the Federal government, through the use of force, took that right away. Am I glad we are one country, sure, but I am just pointing out that the Civil War wasn’t just about freeing the slaves.
Anyways, I have digressed. I am more of a supporter of the message Ron Paul is talking about regarding foreign policy, fiscal policy, and domestic policy. I see nothing wrong with us implementing policies that will reverse the trend that we are witnessing today in regards towards increased dependence on the Government, increasing hatred towards us in the world, the erosion of our God given rights, and protecting our national identity.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Bullshit, Billy do better research.