Ron Paul wants us to believe that he wasn't paying attention when the newsletters that went out under his name for twenty years carried articles that were racist, homophobic, and antisemitic.
This story has circulated before; however when The New Republic posted a story on Tuesday detailing some of the nastier morsels with extensive direct quotes, Ron Paul responded:
"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts....I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."
Well, no, Paul really hasn't taken any responsibility. Paul so far refuses to name the author of the turgid bigotry in his newsletter, and Paul's responses over the years are less apologetic than non-denial denials. He didn't write it. He didn't know. He wasn't paying attention. Don't blame him.
Who else is there to blame?
And what about the overall slant of Paul's newsletters and public pronouncements? For decades Ron Paul has been promoting bogus right-wing theories about a conspiracy to erode America's national sovereignty--a conspiracy supposedly involving the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations, and Trilateral Commission. These are the same allegations spread by the armed militia movement of the 1990s. Paul's current claims about a proposed North American Union and a so-called "NAFTA Superhighway" from Mexico to Canada echo pet conspiracy theories of dubious right-wing information sources such as World Net Daily and Human Events.
Paul denies he promotes these conspiracy theories, even though they are essentially identical to right-wing conspiracy theories circulated since the 1950s. In the 1960s the font of such New World Order conspiracy theories was the John Birch Society, an ultra-conservative organization who today still carries forward the proposition (first articulated in the late 1790s) that a secret society called the Illuminati are constructing a One World Government and manipulating elected officials in the United States.
Paul, no surprise, has become a hero to legions of conspiracy theorists, including some for whom White supremacy, homophobia, and antisemitism are as American as apple pie. Organized racist groups use generic conspiracy theories as an entry point for recruitment. Since the 1800s, claims of sinister plots for global subversion have been interwoven with lurid antisemitic stories of Jewish plots for global conquest.
It is not fair to suggest that Ron Paul is part of any of these bigoted movements, but it is more than fair to ask Paul why he lacks the common decency and common sense to quickly return a campaign donation from a notorious neonazi. It is also fair to ask Paul to explain in more detail how his views about the covert plans of global elites to destroy U.S. sovereignty differs from the generic or antisemitic New World Order conspiracy theories easily found on the Web. What are Paul's specific sources of information for his claims? When Paul provides his sources we can compare them to the theories promulgated by the John Birch Society--as well as groups with more bigoted baggage.
The rhetoric of Ron Paul over the past decade has been interpreted by some constituencies as coded support for bigoted ideas. This use of coded language in public debate is nothing new. As a Presidential candidate, George Wallace refined the art of coded White supremacist appeals to a high political art form. Wallace knew he was speaking in code, as did President Richard Nixon who adapted the Wallace rhetoric for the Republican's racist "Southern Strategy." Does Paul ever wonder why ultra-right crackpots, conspiracy theorists, bigots, and neonazis champion his cause? Does Paul not realize his rhetoric tends to support bigots unless it is clarified?
Why is it so hard for Paul to see that his name is being bandied about by bigots who suggest that Paul holds beliefs that he claims he does not hold? Why doesn't Paul realize he has an obligation to forcefully distance himself from such claims? This isn't about guilt by association; this is about a major political candidate standing up and setting the record straight using clear language. Otherwise it gives the appearance that Paul is seeking public plausible deniability, while continuing to court the very constituencies he suggests he rejects.
Read more on conspiracism and coded language here.
Follow Chip Berlet on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cberlet
http://www.publiceye.org/sucker_punch/index.html
http://www.nolanchart.com/article1134.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm
Maybe you should listen to a local NAACP chapter leader and see what he says about Ron Paul.
http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_08_29_linder.mp3
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
In fact, I urge all Ron Paul supporters to browse the available articles by him on lewrockwell.com - because you might discover you have a lot less in common (or in agreement) with him than you realize. Don't just vote for someone because they sound good on TV, do some research too.
-try the publications and statements of the managers and elitist foundations and think tanks that run system Paul is trying to alert us to (CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergers, David Rockefeller, etc.). They haven't exactly been secret about the multinational corporate police state they have largely put in place. www.infowars.com has some good info...
Bush signed the North American Union with Mexico and Canada in 2005 without running it past Congress or the Senate. What is theoretical about that?
An ignorant angry mob falsely accused and lynched the Duke lacrosse players because they had a black stripper at a party who saw an opportunity and yelled rape. It made no difference what that the men said that they didn't do it. No one stopped to listen.
The same ignorant angry mob has falsely accused and lynched Kelly Tilghman of the Golf Channel because she said that the only way that other players could beat her friend Tiger would be to lynch him. Tiger said that he was not offended by what his friend said and that it is a non-issue. No one stopped to listen.
The same ignorant angry mob has falsely accused Ron Paul and is the process of lynching him. It doesn't matter what he says or has actually said in the past. No one is stopping to listen.
More like the virtue vultures, if ya asked me.
IMO,Ron Paul is a rather pathetic creature.
Freedoms and liberty must prevail and you will have to take notice on MLK day.
Peace to all.
Second, I am very conflicted over Ron Paul. He is associated with at worst, bigoted views and at best, crackpot views. This makes me want to reject him out of hand. Yet, he CURRENTLY talks more sense than any of his GOP opponents. He talks the truth that none of his opponents have the guts to talk. He is the only one pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. He lays bare the illogic and hypocrisy of our foreign policy.
Fortunately for me, I don't have to struggle too hard over my conflicted feelings for Paul since I am a Democrat and will be supporting Obama. :-)