Recently, I had a letter published in the Poughkeepsie Journal expressing support
of Ron Paul for President. I shortly thereafter received an e-mail from a
member of my synagogue saying she read some news in the Baltimore Sun regarding the Ron Paul racist newsletters. Her email
read
“I love seeing your letters in the Poughkeepsie Journal (and the ones you've written in CT too). However, I was surprised to read the recent one endorsing Ron Paul. While you may agree with some of his thinking, did you know he's published anti-Semitic, anti-Black, and homophobic diabtribes? I read a column in the Baltimore Sun last week (when we were, duh, in Baltimore) quoting from some of these writings, which he now denies but came out under his name a few years ago.”
However,
while I appreciate everyone’s
concerns, Ron Paul is not a racist. Here is what I wrote in response:
I appreciate your
concern regarding Ron Paul's newsletters. Ron Paul has denied those newsletters
all along, but they just came to the forefront now. He has said he had a moral
responsibility to read everything that was being published in his name, and failed
to do so. But, he is not a racist at all. Aside from the fact that he didn't
actually write the newsletters, he's spoken out against racism repeatedly. Look
at this quote from Paul on Bill Moyers Journal on January 4th, 2008 ""Libertarianism
is the enemy of all racism, because racism is a collectivist idea that you put
people in categories. You say, well blacks belong here, and whites here, and
women here and we don't see people in forms..or gays. You don't have rights because
your gays, or women or minorities, you have rights because you’re an
individual. So we see people strictly as individuals. We get these individuals
in a natural way. So it's exactly opposite of all collectivism and it's
absolutely anti-racism because we don't see it in those terms. "
Additionally, Paul has repeatedly
opposed Constitutional Amendments to ban same-sex marriage, even when the
Republican Party was pushing for them. As for Anti-Semitism, when Israel bombed
the Iraqi nuclear plant in the 1980s, Congress voted to condemn Israel for
their actions. However, Congressman Paul stood alone and supported Israel's
right to make its own decisions as a nation. Wouldn't an Anti-Semite seize on
any opportunity to criticize a Jewish state? Other than Israel, I haven't
really come across a situation where Paul strongly opposed Anti-Semitism
specifically, but he certainly doesn't support it.
In his 2008 Book
"The Revolution", Ron Paul wrote the following (emphasis added by
me):
“No form of political organization,
therefore, is immune to cruel abuses like the Jim Crow laws, whereby government
sets out to legislate on how groups of human beings are allowed to interact
with one another.
Peaceful civil
disobedience to unjust laws, which I support with every fiber of my being, can
sometimes be necessary at any level of government. It falls upon the people, in
the last resort, to stand against injustice no matter where it occurs.
In the long run, the only way racism can be overcome is through the philosophy of
individualism, which I have promoted throughout my life. Our rights come to us
not because we belong to some group, but our rights come to us as individuals.
And it is as individuals that we should judge one another.
Racism is a
particularly odious form of collectivism whereby individuals are treated not on
their merits but on the basis of group identity. Nothing in my political
philosophy, which is the exact opposite of the racial totalitarianism of the
twentieth century, gives aid or comfort to such thinking. To the contrary, my
philosophy of individualism is the most radical intellectual challenge to
racism ever posed.
Government exacerbates racial
thinking and undermines individualism because its very existence encourages
people to organize along racial lines in order to lobby for benefits for their
group. That lobbying, in turn, creates animosity and suspicion among all
groups, each of which believes that it is getting less of its fair share than
the others.
Instead, we should quit thinking in
terms of race—yes, in 2008 it is still necessary to say that we should Stop
thinking in terms of race—and recognize that freedom and prosperity benefit all
Americans.”
When criticizing the War on Drugs,
Dr. Paul has frequently pointed out the racist fact that while Blacks only make
up 14% of drug users, they make up 36% of those arrested for drug use and 63%
of those who eventually wind up in jail. Regardless of your opinion on drug
legalization, this is obviously not the opinion of a racist.
In his 2002 article "What Really
Divides Us", Ron Paul wrote "Liberty means free-market capitalism,
which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose
customers, goodwill, and valuable employees- while rational businesses flourish
by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers.
More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as
an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality."
Additionally, Ron Paul has adamantly
opposed the racist "profiling" that occurs at airports across the
country. "“We can think back no further than July of 1996, when a plane
carrying several hundred people suddenly and mysteriously crashed off the coast
of Long Island. Within days, Congress had passed emergency legislation calling
for costly new security measures, including a controversial “screening” method
which calls for airlines to arbitrarily detain passengers just because the
person meets certain criteria which border on racist and xenophobic.”
Additionally, in November of 2008,
shortly after Barack Obama was elected, Paul congratulated him, saying Martin
Luther King would be proud. “With the election behind us, our country
turns hopeful eyes to the future. I have a few hopes of my own. I congratulate
our first African-American president-elect. Martin Luther King, Jr. certainly
would be proud to see this day. We are stronger for embracing diversity, and I
am hopeful that we can continue working through the tensions and wrongs of the
past and become a more just and colorblind society. I hope this new
administration will help bring us together, and not further divide us. I have
always found that freedom is the best way to break down barriers. A free
society emphasizes the importance of individuals, and not because they are part
of a certain group. That’s the only way equal justice can be achieved.”
If you want a more expansive list of
evidence that Ron Paul is not a racist, I invite you to visit http://www.dailypaul.com/195717/breaking-even-more-racially-charged-writings-by-ron-paul-uncovered or
watch the Youtube video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY to
see several more
Yes, Ron Paul should have read
everything that was written in the newsletters before they were published in
his name. He has said so himself, and repeatedly apologized for his moral
mistake. But making a mistake is not the same as being a racist. The fact is,
many politicians don't read entire mailings that are published in their name.
For that matter, I received a reply from the editor of the Poughkeepsie Journal prior to my letter being
published saying "Please confirm that you sent this letter so we can
publish it." There was an attachment called "letter". And this
happens every time I send a letter in. And sometimes, I don't open the attachment.
It's probably not a good idea, for the same reason it hurt Ron Paul. I
generally send letters every thirty days, just as Paul's newsletters were
published regularly. He'd just assumed it would be acceptable to him since it
normally was. If 30 days from now, someone were to send a letter in my name,
and I were to send a letter with my name and actual opinion, it's conceivable
that the one I neither wrote nor agreed with would get published. Yes, I would
share some of the blame, but that wouldn't make me agree with whatever I didn't
say. It just means I would need to be more careful. And Ron Paul learned that
he needs to be more careful. So he has been, and he will be.
I'm not sure if the question about what made me support Ron Paul specifically was only about why I supported him in spite of the racism, or if you want something more specific about him specifically. I've got to respond to other emails now, but if you want me to explain the latter in more detail, I will certainly do so.
I'm not sure if the question about what made me support Ron Paul specifically was only about why I supported him in spite of the racism, or if you want something more specific about him specifically. I've got to respond to other emails now, but if you want me to explain the latter in more detail, I will certainly do so.
Thank you and Happy New Year!
-Gregory
Clearly, Ron Paul is not a racist. It really frustrates me
when people don’t bother fact-checking before making claims. But that’s what’s
going on with Ron Paul. Hopefully it doesn’t cost him the election. Tonight’s
caucuses will be a big test.As for the email, I just received an email back saying that what I said makes sense, and she's glad to hear the Sun stuff isn't true. She does feel Paul never should have let this get in print, and I agree, but that doesn't mean he agrees with it. Anyway, less than 10 hours until the caucuses are called to order. Barely nine now. Let's go.
