I support Ron Paul because for any faults he might have, on the central issues of our time he is both precient and absolutely correct on the necessary reforms we need to push through to turn this country around before a monetary collapse. He is also a far better choice than Romney, Gingrich or Obama. Now, of course the Republican establishment hates him with a passion. And given that he is going to win in Iowa and he is going up dramatically in all polls while Gingrich and Romney are falling, many are in full blown panic mode, doing everything possible to discredit him and destroy him politically. The one trump card they have known about for a while is the so-called racist newsletters that were written under his name in the 80s and early 90s. What the media is attempting to do now is flood the news networks with reports and suggestions that he is a racist in order to scare away potential supporters. Many people will take what they read as fact without looking into the story any or getting any explanation. As long as a certain percentage are discouraged from supporting him, they can keep him from the nomination. Whether or not the story has any merit, the way it is USED is the height of journalistic misconduct and character assassination.
To this day, almost every time I get into an argument online about Ron Paul, someone naturally resorts to calling him a racist when they are unable to discredit his views on economics or knock his consistency or integrity. Other times I hear that someone new to Ron Paul asking whether he is a racist due to things they have read (usually a smear attempt) that incorrectly attributes quotes as if they were written and spoken by Dr Paul himself.
I know many here are not libertarians. That is fine and I can respect that. However, I doubt any honest person could claim that Ron Paul is a racist. The truth about these newsletters is that Ron Paul lent his name to people who actually wrote the letters, like a publisher. People were hired and fired that he never met. Anyone who is familiar with the practice of ghostwriting or have ever been involved with a large organization in the role of a publisher would know how easy it can be for others to express views that you don't hold.
Ron Paul served two separate terms in Congress. One started in the 1970s. He retired from Congress in 1984. He went back to medical practice full time. He did run as the Libertarian party nominee in 1988 but other than that he was not involved in politics until he ran again in 1996. During the 1980s he was relatively unknown and he did not expect to get back into politics again. There were a few organizations he was involved in that were made up of paleo conservative and libertarian groups that were trying to build the movement. Ron Paul had spoken to everyone and he freely allowed his name to be leant to a few different groups who wanted to use his modest name recognition among target groups to spread what they viewed as similar viewpoints. The newsletters in question were produced entirely without involvement from Ron Paul. In fact, Ron Paul was a full time OBGYN at the time, which means work weeks of 50 to 60 hours were common.
Now, we have all seen the quotes that have been put forth over and over again by the media. Many of them are quite offensive. Some are actually not racist, but rather are non politically correct and taken out of context. Regardless of this, they are wrong and Ron Paul has disavowed all these statements and has issued a detailed explanation that these are not his words nor thoughts.
Ron Paul is a libertarian who has always been confident in his own views. He is also someone who respects the sovereignty of other individuals and is not one to tell other people what to do. That is why he has always been willing to talk with people who might not agree with him or who he may disagree with strongly on certain issues. He talks with Alex Jones frequently, although he is not a 9/11 Truther.
During the late 80s and early 90s, elements of the "paleoconservative" movement were trying to gain support and votes through any means necessary. During the heightened tension between the races during that period of gangster rap, the crack epidemic, gang violence and the LA riots, some turned to cynical pandering and race baiting tactics to win over support. Some of this crept into the Ron Paul newsletters.
But anyone who knows Ron Paul knows that the language and wording of all these offensive phrases cannot be attributable to Ron Paul due to the drastic differences in style. Listen to Ron Paul speak. He always speaks about his philosophy and the ideas of individual liberty and the constitution. He NEVER goes after people personally. Nobody has ever heard Ron Paul talk about anyone in terms of groups. He has made this distinction clear many times in the past.
Now, I do believe that people should be given an explanation. Ron Paul has given a detailed explanation that he was unaware of these writings and disavows everything that was written. He has explained this repeatedly. But the veiled charge that he is a racist goes too far.
There is no evidence to support that. The problem is not an honest journalist asking a question about this. The problem is waiting until Ron Paul becomes a "threat" and then playing this story over and over again and attributing the most offensive quotes they could find from a decade of newsletters as if they came out of Ron Paul's mouth. That is character assassination and is not honest journalism.
How could a libertarian be a racist? Racism implies that you believe in collective rights or collective identities. If a person relies believes in individual rights and liberties, they cannot be a racist because everyone is an individual to be judged by their character and actions, not by a collective label (black, gay, catholic, jew, etc).
So, I am asking the fine people in this forum if they are with me in saying that the media is out of line to suggest that Ron Paul is a racist. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with Ron Paul, but can't we agree that whether or not people support him should be based on what you think of his ideas on the economy? Or his ideas about civil liberties or foreign policy?
If a journalist asks an honest question about the newsletters and gets an honest answer, fine. Then they should move on and report on his views on what we should do about the economy and unemployment. Then they should talk about what he believes we should do about reforming government or auditing the federal reserve. What they are doing is asking this question over and over again, getting the same answer and goading people into asking "Is Ron Paul a closet racist?" while ignoring the important questions on his policy ideas. This does a great disservice to voters who want to elect someone who will fix the economy. They are only going to hear slander and baseless assertions until after the first several primaries are over (or if he does well, maybe not after that).
Can we agree this is unfounded and horrible journalism? And is it really so hard to see how some offensive passages could get into a newsletter that Paul was simply a publisher for but had no direct imput on content?
Not only that, but his actions his entire life have contradicted racism and bigotry. One of his primary complaints about the war on drugs and the death penalty is the unfair and disproportionate sentancing of minorities. He has long railed against the criminal justice system for being run in a racist and discriminatory way. The economic collapse he has long warned about has disproportionately affected african americans and he wants to fix this system. There are a long list of Federal policies and regulations that have kept poor blacks from having access to the American dream. Ron Paul is working to fix them so that everyone can work their way up in society. Ron Paul has condemned police brutality and misconduct.
His policies would do more to help minorities than any other candidate and even president Obama. Can we just accept that this is a smear that is being used to try and keep Ron Paul from the nomination?
In fact, NAACP President Nelson Linder has come to Ron Paul's defense and he has known Paul for over twenty years: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/11137575-naacp-leader-nelson-linder-ron-paul-is-not-a-racist
In medical practice, Ron Paul on principle didn't accept Medicare or Medicade. He treated poor minorities for free during his entire time being a doctor. For decades he has made the claim that Martin Luther King, Jr and Rosa Parks are heroes of his for their practice of the libertarian principle of civil disobedience. He has long praised those who put themselves in danger of arrest or even death in order to end immoral laws or government practices. He has always done this.
This is what Ron Paul has said on the subject of racism:
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims.
Who's with me? Do you agree that this story should not be brought up over and over? Can you not think it coceivable that a man retired from politics, working 50 to 60 hours a week in private practice, with no plans to return to politics could have been unaware of what ghostwriters were writing under his name?
Please leave feedback. But please be intelligent and respectful.