The Liberal's Ron Paul Problem

The liberal attacks on Ron Paul, fueled by a recent hit piece in the New Republic, are so transparently cynical that it almost makes me smile.

Almost.

To quote James Ridgeway, liberals can be and often are the meanest motherfuckers around. Criticize any of their scared beliefs, then watch out. They'll come at you with anything they've got, doesn't matter if it's truthful, accurate, or even sane. American liberals truly feel that they are humanity's Final Word. If you dispute that, you're a bigot, a hater, a piece of slime that deserves only the nastiest treatment. And baby, you'll get it.

At issue is Ron Paul's supposed racism and queer-phobia, reflected in newsletters that bore his name. Paul has distanced himself from the newsletters, saying that others penned the toxic rhetoric, without his direct knowledge or approval. Maybe Paul's telling the truth. Maybe he's not. Maybe he really does despise those of darker hue and same-sexers. Maybe he's like the worst racist you've ever seen. Maybe he eats black children for breakfast.

Whatever Paul actually believes about minorities and queers is not the real concern here. What bothers liberals, TNR's James Kirchik among them, is that Paul is the only presidential candidate who is seriously running against the state. This includes anti-imperialism and calls to end the Drug War. Given that Hillary and Obama are nowhere near this mindset -- quite the opposite -- means that anyone who is must be a bad person. If those newsletters didn't exist, hit men like Kirchik and the libloggers who support him would find something else to smear Paul with. Because, at bottom, they oppose any dismantling of the war state (recall Kos' shitting all over Kucinich). They simply want their preferred candidates to run the machine instead.

For TNR, there's another angle to its anti-Paul attack: Israel. Paul wants to end U.S. military aid to Israel, and is critical of Israeli aggression (he's also critical of Hezbollah and Hamas, but that doesn't count). This simply won't do for Democrats and many liberals, who either support Israeli violence and occupation, or are at best mum on the topic. When Israeli fighter jets were pounding Lebanon in 2006, it took weeks for leading libloggers to type the slightest negative word, which for them was "disproportionate." It was okay to bury Lebanese in rubble, just so long as it wasn't too much rubble. By opposing this and other uses of American tax dollars to kill and maim Arabs, Ron Paul shows that he's probably anti-Semitic as well.

The funny thing about TNR attacking Paul for being racist is that TNR has published plenty of racist musings itself. Martin Peretz alone contributed much of this, his belief that the "primitive" Palestinians are genetically and culturally incapable of achieving peace (for which no one is to blame, added Peretz in a tender moment) merely one of many racist screeds that TNR had no problem pushing. Then there was former editor Andrew Sullivan inviting Charles Murray to explain at length his "Bell Curve" theory in TNR's pages, a decision that Sullivan defended by writing, "The notion that there might be resilient ethnic differences in intelligence is not, we believe, an inherently racist belief." Of course not. Ron Paul, on the other hand . . .

I might be mistaken, but so far as I know, Ron Paul has not left the campaign trail to oversee the killing of a black man. Liberal hero Bill Clinton did in 1992, flying back to Arkansas from New Hampshire to witness Rickey Ray Rector take the lethal needle. (Since Clinton was our first black president, did that constitute black-on-black violence?) Clinton also expanded the police and prison state, in which a large number of African-Americans are trapped, and shredded the safety net for the poor, among whom reside many African-Americans. Does this make Bill Clinton a racist? Hush yo' mouf!

Racism isn't Paul's only sin. According to Kirchik, those newsletters exhibited acute paranoia:

[S]pecifically, the brand of anti-government paranoia that festered among right-wing militia groups during the 1980s and '90s. Indeed, the newsletters seemed to hint that armed revolution against the federal government would be justified. In January 1995, three months before right-wing militants bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, a newsletter listed 'Ten Militia Commandments,' describing 'the 1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty' as 'one of the most encouraging developments in America.' It warned militia members that they were 'possibly under BATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] or other totalitarian federal surveillance' and printed bits of advice from the Sons of Liberty, an anti-government militia based in Alabama--among them, 'You can't kill a Hydra by cutting off its head,' 'Keep the group size down,' 'Keep quiet and you're harder to find,' 'Leave no clues,' 'Avoid the phone as much as possible,' and 'Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.'

Yikes. Scary stuff. Sane people know that there is no American surveillance state -- or there wasn't one during the hallowed Clinton era, when all that crazy militia activity was taking place. According to liberal history, police state measures (torture, too) only occur during Republican presidencies, the past seven years being the most recent example. For Paul's newsletter to say otherwise is simple lunacy.

I'll tell you this: I've studied various strands of American right wing political philosophy and beliefs, and have had many conversations with rightists of different temperaments, and when it comes to seriously defending First and Fourth Amendment rights (what remain, anyway), I'll stand with libertarians like Ron Paul. I may not agree with most of his beliefs, nor that of the anti-statist right overall, but I know that Paul and others like him aren't looking to tap my phone or break down my door in the middle of the night.

Think the Branch Davidians were paranoid? Then vote Hillary or Obama. And sleep tight.

Comments

[WorkingClass]

What a relief to read this piece. If I knew how to write I would have written it myself. Thanks for the part about what mean ass holes liberals (Democrats) can be. I was a Democrat until I supported Nader and the party kicked me out. And thanks for saying that the reason liberals hate Ron Paul is because he is running against the state. Thats it exactly. I just couldn't put my finger on it. Keep up the good work.

[Nutcase]

Why are people who think government is evil so interested in being a part of it?

Why are people (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II) so adamant about reducing the size of government the ones who enlarge it the most?

Why is anyone wasting their time on the subject of Ron Paul?

cognito ergo populistae

[BlackJAC]

Things We Have That Are Not In The Constitution, Which Means The Founding Fathers Didn't Intend For America To Have Them In The First Place And President Ron Paul Will Eliminate Them:
* police departments
* fire departments
* electricity
* paved roads
* banks
* laws banning theft, rape and murder
* cars
* credit cards
* television
* magazines
* photography
* guns that aren't muzzle-loading black powder flintlocks
* refrigerators
* convenience stores
* soda
* telephones
* the Internet
* the Air Force (which Ron Paul used to be in)
* motorboats
* recorded music
* airplanes
* pasteurized milk
* the very drugs Ron Paul wants to legalize
* paychecks

Suffice to say that the staff writers for GOSSIP GIRL have a better grasp on reality than Ron Paul. The world has gotten significantly more complex since 1786, and if you choose to buy the bill of goods that Ron Paul is selling you simply because you want your habit to remain raid-free, then I've got some oceanfront property in Wyoming I'd like to sell you.

[2224612]

After reading quite a few of these responses to this article I have to say I am not surprised there is a great deal of support for Dr. Paul.

The trouble is that Libertarians have no truck with a social conscience. They will go out of their way to emphasize all the bad things our government has done. They spend enormous amounts of newsprint and ink showing us how useless the central form of government we have is. They want to disband the central bank and take us to a gold standard for our monetary system.

I am not going to get into a pissing contest with these nice folks. I am just going to say my social conscience tells me a system that glorifies the individual is bad for our country. We will get no where as a bunch of individuals. The only way this country will answer the promise of our forbears is for us all to work together, not as a bunch of loners.

[aisling]

I appreciate your defense of Ron Paul. I don't believe for a second that he is a racist. I am a progressive Indepeendent, who encourages a candidate like Ron Paul. I agree with many of his statements about Isreal's militarist overkill. I agree with him about government abuse of our civil rights under ths Constitution. I don't agree with some of his other positions, but I surely agree with his call for withdrawal from Iraq. My grandson served as a Marine in two deployments there and can tell you stories that confirm Ron Paul's point of view. I want Paul in the debates. It's shameful when he's excluded,as it was when Ralph Nader was excluded. This country is a mess on every level,the media contributing to the problem, with the exception of Bill Moyers et al. We need to hear a full spectrum of voices. We need at least a third and fourth party as part of our democratic,political process. Please keep up the good work of speaking truth to power.

[ricknhouston]

Are you opposed to providing medical care to the elderly, disabled, and poor? Will you support your own parents when they are too old and/or sick to work? Will you pay for their food, housing, clothing, transportation, and medical bills out of your own pocket?

What an archaic thought that I would ever be asked or expected to "support my own parents when they become too old and/or sick to work"! I would be honored to have that opportunity, missy! My mother worked herself into the grave at age 65 for her six children, 3 of whom she had to bury, thanks to our illegal, immoral and unethical involvments in places like Vietnam and Iraq, and something no parent should ever have to do. If your parents are still living, I pray that they do not lay eyes on the words you have written here. You should be ashamed of yourself!

[huffnpuffn]

Outstanding piece. Far better than just about anything else I've seen addressing the Ron Paul campaign at Huff Post.

[Dohiyi]

Do Ron Paul supporters really understand what economic libertarianism entails? Do you really want a country with no governmental regulation of corporations, working conditions, or the environment? Do you really want to eliminate both Social Security and company provided pension systems? Are you opposed to providing medical care to the elderly, disabled, and poor? Will you support your own parents when they are too old and/or sick to work? Will you pay for their food, housing, clothing, transportation, and medical bills out of your own pocket? Do you want your own employment benefits, such as health insurance, to disappear? Do you want to be a rugged individualist competing with multi-billionaires for your fair share of the economic pie? Do you want all blue-collar, technical, managerial, and professional jobs to go to the lowest bidders in the world economy? Can you effectively compete in a world labor market dominated by Asians with far lower living costs, willing to do your job for a tiny fraction of your pay? If so, vote for Ron Paul.

[Dohiyi]

As a true economic libertarian, Ron Paul wants to put an end to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental regulation, food and drug regulation, anti-trust regulation, regulation of the stock and bond markets, the minimum wage, regulation of workplace safety, in fact, any involvment of government in our lives except to defend the borders from invasion. He would not want the states to govern any of these areas of life either.

So, if you would be happy living in a world totally dominated by billionaires unrestricted by government, a world with no retirement benefits, no health care benefits, no right to organize labor to negotiate with management, no one to prevent international corporations from raping the earth and its people, you should be very happy with Ron Paul.

BTW are you planning on supporting your parents when they are too old to work, to pay for all of their medical expenses? Maybe you would prefer to stand by and let them die. Along with all of the poor, the sick, and the disabled -- After all, why should we give a hoot what happens to anyone besides ourselves?

[BaltoAman]

Thank you Mr. Perrin. Yes, there are plenty of double standards flying around this election cycle. The latest racist this time is, of course, Hillary (too funny.)

Sensationlism is what sells papers and hauls in the ad revenue. In addition, you get the wonderful obfuscation and distraction from the real issues.

In fact, on CNN's front page we still get the picture of the pretty blond marine. Or you can get updates on the latest Obama-Hillary feud (it's so very intriguing.)

Thanks again for the post!

[Graemek]

Thanks for the article! I do like your style - sensible and witty.
On the matter of RP supporters' passions, I think it's not so much to do with having their beliefs assaulted. I'd say it's to do with the prospects for the U.S.'s future if it doesn't change direction. There's an awful lot at stake and it's no surprise that passions run high when Ron Paul may be the last chance to restore the republic.

[Republicae]

The New Republic long ago lost both any credibility it had maintained or usefulness.

Anyone, with a smigen of either intelligence or common sense who has read and followed Dr. Paul since the 70s would know that he doesn't have a rascist bone in his body.

The New Republic long ago dissolved into YELLOW NEWS.

[Talcott]

Indeed, good article.

[daftdada]

Finally, an objective article about Ron Paul. Thank you Mr. Perrin!

[aChris]

The sooner they can get the war, civil liberties and responsible economic policies off the table the happier the establishment candidates will be. Thank god Paul's got a boatload of money to keep those issues as close to the heart of the campaign as he can.