|
January 16, 2008
Can a small "l" get smaller?
I hadn't realized the true extent of Ron Paul's nuttiness until I read this: The newsletters' obsession with blacks and gays was of a piece with a conscious political strategy adopted at that same time by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. After breaking with the Libertarian Party following the 1988 presidential election, Rockwell and Rothbard formed a schismatic "paleolibertarian" movement, which rejected what they saw as the social libertinism and leftist tendencies of mainstream libertarians. In 1990, they launched the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, where they crafted a plan they hoped would midwife a broad new "paleo" coalition.Read it all. Author Julian Sanchez believes it is important to discuss this stuff because of its tendency to discredit libertarianism: ...[Paul's] new supporters, many of whom are first encountering libertarian ideas through the Ron Paul Revolution, deserve a far more frank explanation than the campaign has as yet provided of how their candidate's name ended up atop so many ugly words. Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists--and taking "moral responsibility" for that now means more than just uttering the phrase. It means openly grappling with his own past--acknowledging who said what, and why. Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life.Linking the above, Roger L. Simon observes that it is scary that Paul continues to do so well: I find it quite scary that Ron Paul continues to do relatively well at the polls, despite the numerous revelations about him and his cohorts. Paul is quite clearly a liar, but this continues to be ignored for the most part by the mainstream media - who give Paul a pass and have not really confronted him at any of the debates - and clearly by many of his adherents, who either choose to ignore or not just not hear the allegations against him. This even though the author of the racist and sexist newsletters that went out under the Congressman's name is evidently one of Paul's oldest and closest supporters.Paul has of course denied writing what went out under his name. But even if we give him the benefit of the doubt, what kind of judgment does he have letting a group of crackpots say anything they want and put his name on it? Here's Roger in an earlier post: [If] Paul paid no attention to these people actually writing and publishing under his name for years, he is a remarkably slapdash leader. The idea someone like that would be President of the United States is ludicrous.I can't excommunicate him from a movement because the "l" in my libertarianism is pretty small. To the extent Paul represents libertarianism, he makes my small "l" smaller than ever. I didn't even address the virulently anti-gay remarks attributed to Paul, but plenty of others have. Of course, I never supported him. I had this kooky unprovable theory of my own that he was just there to discredit classical liberalism and in general make libertarians look bad. (They wouldn't do something like that, would they?) I'll just keep on thinking what I think, and if I have to, I guess I can start calling myself a teensy "l" libertarian. posted by Eric on 01.16.08 at 05:46 PM
Comments
Politicians are bad people. No exceptions. So I never supported Paul, and none of this matters to me re: him personally, or his campaign, or these entirely imaginary people he and it are supposedly drawing to libertarianism. That's just not happening. His is a fleeting, expedient coalition of mutual antagonists - a name cult (since so few of them know or care about his personality, or his positions on more than their obsessed-over single issues). Conveniently, none of this is about any of that anyway. There's a longstanding split between essentially pro- and anti-establishment self-described libertarians that maps fairly well onto the groups stuck with the "beltway" and "paleo" labels. The "beltways" have seized on this flap - and Rockwell's supposed authorship of these things, which is highly doubtful to anyone familiar with his writing style (not that it's not his fault, but the scapegoating's missed its goat, and is creepily reveling in it) - to make a grand display of dissassociation from the "paleos," and, preferably, to excommunicate the "paleos" from libertarianism, at least in the minds of their lefty media associates. They don't deserve it. Though neither do their opposites. And it's all entirely dishonest - Sanchez's contribution especially, since he's the least libertarian of all the "beltways," and is only trying to wish this "damage" into being. It's politics. It's bullshit. And it's evil bullshit. Don't sign up for it. guy on internet · January 16, 2008 07:07 PM They want that name, I mean. guy on internet · January 16, 2008 07:09 PM OK time for a new band. Ron and the Schismatics M. Simon · January 16, 2008 07:39 PM I used to correspond with Zundel in Canada. The "Nazi" guy. He was always making subtle fun of the Nazis. What he proved was that there was a good market for that stuff. He should have stayed out of Germany. Evidently Ron found a similar niche market and milked it for all he could get. It is pretty much his attitude in this campaign. Nazis sending me money? Better I have it than them. I don't know if I can handle politicians that cynical. M. Simon · January 16, 2008 07:45 PM "His is a fleeting, expedient coalition of mutual antagonists - a name cult (since so few of them know or care about his personality, or his positions on more than their obsessed-over single issues)." The facts on the ground, in the primary states and on the Internet would seem to contradict your statement. He is the only candidate with clearly stated positions on the issues. His positions have not changed for 30 years and are well documented and posted for all to see. The number of web hits he receives seem to indicate that some people, at least, are trying to understand his positions. He polls consistently the same numbers so they probably agree with him. The fact that he polls the same numbers would not be indicative of a fleeting coalition. Huckabee's declining numbers, since Iowa, would be indicative of a fleeting coalition. Thompson's and Giuliani's implosion would be indicative of a coalition which isn't just fleeting but fled. Jardinero1 · January 16, 2008 08:51 PM The fact remains that Ron Paul is the only significant (and, yeah, that means not Kucinich) candidate of either major party who wants to immediately end the War in Iraq and the War on Some Drugs. That, by itself, earns him my support. Yep, he profited from racist diatribes, even if he didn't write them. Yep, he is tapdancing much more than I like about equal legal status for gays. Yep, it is sort of odd to have a medical doctor say that he doesn't "believe" in evolution (then why do surgeons practice on dogs and pigs?). But, bottom line, he is the only Republican or Democratic Presidential candidate who comes even close to a pro-freedom policy. Best case is that Dr. Paul gives a real stem-winder of a speech at the GOP convention and kicks off a renewal of a libertarian/Constitutionalist wing in the Republican Party. Fritz · January 16, 2008 09:57 PM Ron - Right on one war wrong on the other. Ron never explains why there was no declaration of war against the jihadis in 1801 and 1815 and why we need one now. In fact if you read the AUMF from that time and compare it to the current AUMF it would be hard to tell the difference. He never explains how letting Al Q have free reign in Iraq is in our long term interest. And you know I voted for the guy in '88 so I am not unsympathetic to his positions. However, I changed my mind on 9/11 about a couple of things. Evidently dear leader Ron is incapable of changing his. Most unfortunate. Fritz - a stem winder at the R convention? That has as much chance as Al Sharpton being invited to the podium at the Ds. I must remind all you Paul fans that the L party lost 40% of its membership in the aftermath of 9/11. Also it might be wise to read the communists idea of American foreign policy. You couldn't tell it from Ron's. I should know. I was a Trot in my youth. Ron Paul is a communist. M. Simon · January 16, 2008 10:34 PM Simon -- your syllogism boils down to: Communists want America to have a non-interventionist foreign policy. Ron Paul wants America to have a non-interventionist foreign policy. Therefore, Ron Paul is a Communist. The fallacy of that attempt at reasoning is a subject for an introduction to logic course. The LP has lost membership because it is utterly ineffective. I have been involved, off and on, with the LP since 1975. I know the ineffectiveness from personal experience. We should have declared war against Al Qaeda in 2001. But that has nothing to do with Iraq. Fritz · January 17, 2008 12:26 AM Having read the Turner Diaries to see what the hoo-ha was all about, these articles seemed very similar. One of the insidious things about the Turner Diaries is that it starts out with, "blacks and Mexicans are bad" because presumably you believe that when you pick the book up, and then tries to slide you into, "but wait until you hear about the JEWS!!!" I'm wondering if that is where Lew/Ron/WhoeverWroteThem was on his way to. Phelps · January 17, 2008 11:04 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
January 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
January 2008
December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
I'll be 96. But how old will my robot be?
the race to play cards Getting Tuned Up Fighting illiteracy starts at home with the TV set! Contact Your Congress Critter Ron Paul Is A Communist Can a small "l" get smaller? Fred Phelps explained, finally! Why I Am Against Machine Voting All The Rest Is Obfuscation
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I had a falling out with Lew Rockwell when he asserted that States Rights trumped the right of free association.